How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (2 (1 Viewer)

[Zow]

Wholeheartedly agree that, especially with more emotionally charged issues (religion, politics, sex, etc.), oftentimes the "how" information is delivered supersedes the actual information itself in terms of how the information is received. I appreciate Joe's efforts in helping the OP here. I do agree that others have tried, but perhaps it'll land better from Joe.


(This exchange is timely for me as I'm giving a statewide presentation tomorrow to attorneys in my area of practice as to how we can communicate more effectively and much of my message is the "how" being much more important than the "what").

 

[dgreen]

I agree that Paddington has a track record of "here's the truth and if you disagree then you are wrong". However, I think that has changed a bit. Multiple times in this iteration of this thread, he's prefaced his comments with words like "my opinion" and "my view". This most recent example was in the context of answering a question about how he was using a particular word. I simply took his statement "When God says something it's going to happen" to be part of his clarification of what he meant when he said that Scripture is "unchangeable", which was part of a post that he started with "My belief...". In context, I didn't take it as a statement filled with the baggage of "here's the truth and if you disagree then you are wrong" (even if he happens to believe that).

I get how his track record plays into this. I get how the topic of religion, which unfortunately is filled with people delivering hurtful messages, plays a role in how a statement can be perceived. I just don't think his recent comments are a good example, although I do like that it was a springboard to discussing this topic.

In addition to discussing how a poster should consider the words they use to deliver their message, I think it can also be good to discuss the role of the reader when attempting to interpret what has been said.

 

[Psychopav]

I've heard a lot of the arguments in the "Was he talking about Jesus or was he talking about Israel?" debate. In my mind, that was perfectly good question prior to Jesus' fulfilling of the prophecy. Once fulfilled, the question should go away. It was anyone's guess at the time and I have read several reasoned and well thought out arguments for it being Israel. However, I am of the opinion that if one still holds that position, today, they have a lot more explaining to do than those on team Jesus. If one is going to dismiss Jesus as fulfillment of that prophecy, there is a TON of "coincidence" rationalization that has to occur.

I feel myself headed down the road of "I have to convince him I'm right!" and I don't want to go that direction in our conversation. I think you understand my point and I think I understand your point, so I'd like to move away from Isaiah 53. (But if you'd like to continue, I'm more than willing.)

If you're ok with it, I'd like to shift gears a bit. I'd like to stay on the same general topic, but use a different passage. Can we talk about Matthew 2:13-15:

13 Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord * appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to kill Him.”


14 So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt. 15 He stayed there until the death of Herod; this happened so that what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: “ Out of Egypt I called My Son.”

How do you interpret Matthew's use of Hosea 11:1 here? Specifically, do you think Jesus was the "son" spoken of in Hosea?

My view on Hosea 11:1 is that it's speaking of Israel, not Christ. What reason do you have to believe it's talking about Christ?

I don’t think Hosea is talking about Christ. Some people assume he is because of how Matthew uses it. But, when people read Hosea, they tend to agree the son is Israel. So then another solution is to say that Hosea was talking about Israel, but God had another message embedded into Hosea that was then revealed later in Jesus, making Hosea about both Israel and Jesus. I don’t that’s what’s going on either, but those are a couple ways people say Hosea was about Jesus.

Not saying this is true for Hosea, but there are many places where a passage can have a dual meaning. Many of the prophetic Psalms are that way. Have you looked into the many prophetic scriptures in the Old Testament that were fulfilled in the new testament? It's astounding. I actually have a list somewhere if you are interested.

Yeah, I spent a good amount of time recently looking at Matthew’s fulfillment statements. The double meaning is a possibility, but I don’t think that’s what’s going on. For example, I don’t think Psalm 22 has either a single meaning or a second/double meaning of predicting the crucifixion.

It's a matter of faith, isn't it? Matthew isn't making a logical argument so much as he is explaining a faithful interpretation of the scripture. The question in my mind isn't whether Matthew has proven his case so much as whether he has posited a plausible explanation in light of the action of the Holy Spirit. Looking at it strictly from the intent of the OT author is already presupposing the lack of influence of the Spirit. Put another way, looking at it from the intent of the Spirit presupposes a supernatural inspiration to a dual interpretation which was unknown to the human author at the time the writing(s) was composed.

I think assumptions about what inspiration means and how the Spirit acts in that process is a big part of this. So, we might struggle to see some things here the same way because we might have different assumptions. I actually think a lot of disagreements on interpretation are based on different assumptions of what it means for the text to be inspired. I get the sense that you think my interpretation is less faithful because I may not see the Spirit at work in the same way you do. If so, I'm honestly not offended at all. I get it. I think many things that other people require of the Bible under their definition of inspiration are things that I don't think are required.

I don't even really have a good set of criteria of what I think inspiration means. I accept it as true, but don't necessarily have a list of ways that I think the Bible has to behave in order to keep that status. But, I believe the creation of the Bible is a joint project between God and man. I think it's important to consider the human aspect, so I don't generally search for supernatural explanations in the process of interpretation.

Interestingly, I recently heard about a guy who said that the Bible's need to be interpreted was part of what it means to be inspired. He thought that canonization wasn't focused on the texts that provide all the answers, but included ones that lead to questioning and interpretation, and even ones that present contradictory voices. I thought about some of the discussions here in the FFA because some have argued against the Bible being divinely inspired because of the fact that it has to be interpreted and that it has contradictions.

Anyway, I find these philosophical discussions fun, but also difficult and a bit confusing. I think discussing the interpretation of specific passages is a good way to get at these types of discussions because, like I said, different interpretations often are the result of different approaches.

Sorry for the delay in responding but I wanted to be at a keyboard when I did, and I've been mostly on my phone the last few days.

I'm sorry my comments came across like how you say in the bolded above. It wasn't my intent at all. What I was really saying is that I consider the "expert" in this situation, more than either of us or even biblical scholars, is Matthew himself. Of course that depends on what you believe about the inerrancy of New Testament scripture. I give it 100% authority, but I don't actually have a good bead on your personal beliefs, and I'm glad you're not offended because no offense was intended. If anything, I think it's very profitable for everyone to genuinely and sincerely seek the truth in these discussions, and to follow their own consciences in what they do with whatever they are able to take away from them. Even if the gospel writers state something as immutable truth, when believers sincerely probe these idioms, exploring them for reasonableness and to understand how they fit into God's plan in our lives and in salvation history, it is very profitable imo (hence the value of this thread ).

SO...having said that, getting back to the point...

In Hebrews 4:12, we read that "God's word is alive, it strikes to the heart. It pierces more surely than a two-edged sword." And in the first chapter of John's gospel, we read that Jesus IS the Word, and again in Revelation 21:5 that (behold!) He makes all things new. So this context is the reason why in my view, for Christians, not just prophecy but everything in the old testament (and to an extent even what we find in the new testament, and in our own spiritual journeys) has layers of meaning.

We've been talking about Hosea, but we can basically pick out any passage where the OT is talking about a specific instance and also look at it through the lens of how it impacts our world, our Church, and our individual lives. Here's an example, from Isaiah (41:8-10):

8But you, Israel, my servant,
Jacob, whom I have chosen,
offspring of Abraham my friend

9You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth
and summoned from its far-off places,
To whom I have said, You are my servant;
I chose you, I have not rejected you

10Do not fear: I am with you;
do not be anxious: I am your God.
I will strengthen you, I will help you,
I will uphold you with my victorious right hand.

I assume the (human) author of these verses was thinking of the Nation of Israel, and God's promise that he will redeem them, but most Christians will probably interpret this and most of the uses of the term "Israel" in the OT to also apply to Christ's Church. In the same way, prophesy may imo validly be viewed through multiple lenses.

 

[dgreen]

Sorry for the delay in responding but I wanted to be at a keyboard when I did, and I've been mostly on my phone the last few days.

I'm sorry my comments came across like how you say in the bolded above. It wasn't my intent at all. What I was really saying is that I consider the "expert" in this situation, more than either of us or even biblical scholars, is Matthew himself. Of course that depends on what you believe about the inerrancy of New Testament scripture. I give it 100% authority, but I don't actually have a good bead on your personal beliefs, and I'm glad you're not offended because no offense was intended. If anything, I think it's very profitable for everyone to genuinely and sincerely seek the truth in these discussions, and to follow their own consciences in what they do with whatever they are able to take away from them. Even if the gospel writers state something as immutable truth, when believers sincerely probe these idioms, exploring them for reasonableness and to understand how they fit into God's plan in our lives and in salvation history, it is very profitable imo (hence the value of this thread ).

SO...having said that, getting back to the point...

In Hebrews 4:12, we read that "God's word is alive, it strikes to the heart. It pierces more surely than a two-edged sword." And in the first chapter of John's gospel, we read that Jesus IS the Word, and again in Revelation 21:5 that (behold!) He makes all things new. So this context is the reason why in my view, for Christians, not just prophecy but everything in the old testament (and to an extent even what we find in the new testament, and in our own spiritual journeys) has layers of meaning.

We've been talking about Hosea, but we can basically pick out any passage where the OT is talking about a specific instance and also look at it through the lens of how it impacts our world, our Church, and our individual lives. Here's an example, from Isaiah (41:8-10):

8But you, Israel, my servant,
Jacob, whom I have chosen,
offspring of Abraham my friend

9You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth
and summoned from its far-off places,
To whom I have said, You are my servant;
I chose you, I have not rejected you

10Do not fear: I am with you;
do not be anxious: I am your God.
I will strengthen you, I will help you,
I will uphold you with my victorious right hand.

I assume the (human) author of these verses was thinking of the Nation of Israel, and God's promise that he will redeem them, but most Christians will probably interpret this and most of the uses of the term "Israel" in the OT to also apply to Christ's Church. In the same way, prophesy may imo validly be viewed through multiple lenses.

I have issues with how the word "inerrancy" is applied. If someone wants to claim the Bible is inerrant, I'm totally fine with adopting that language as long as we can be clear on what that means. What constitutes an error? If we use our modern, Western, enlightened metrics for how the text should work, then there are errors all over the place. I disagree with the Bible being inerrant if those things are the measuring stick. If we allow a Middle Eastern Jew from AD 50 or BC 600 to be who they are and don't require that they conform to our literary preferences, then those problems disappear for me and I'm ok with the term "inerrant". I think the Bible is true about the things it is trying to be true about. Hopefully that helps understand where I'm currently at.

(BTW, I have the same thoughts on whether or not Eden was "perfect". Sure, I'll agree with someone that Eden was "perfect" as long as we can be clear on what that means. It was a place where, for a time, the human was alone, which was described as "not good". It was a place where the ground had to be worked by the human. It was a place where there was a cunning serpent and a tree that was off limits. If that fits someone's definition of perfect, then I'm ok with calling it perfect.)

And I think I'd agree with where you are going with the idea of "layers of meaning", but I'd prefer to say "layers of application". "Meaning" to me is the message that is tied to the author's intention and "application" is how later audiences might transfer that message to their own context.

This is all just fun (for me, at least) word games. We may not be that far apart; we just use different words to describe it. Or maybe we are far apart!

 

[Joe Bryant]

On the style front, I saw a social post today that said:

God didn't call you to be liked. He called you to be light. And light, by its very nature, makes darkness uncomfortable.

I'd say, maybe. I'd say I also think God called us to be effective. And to love people. And to make disciples. And I think in doing those things, you have to think about HOW you're doing them.

Meeting the other person where they are is a foundational basic aspect of communication.

There's some element at some point of asking, "Do you want to make a difference or do you just want to say stuff?'

I'm not saying that's what anyone here is doing. But I see some of that in the world.

 

[Psychopav]

Sorry for the delay in responding but I wanted to be at a keyboard when I did, and I've been mostly on my phone the last few days.

I'm sorry my comments came across like how you say in the bolded above. It wasn't my intent at all. What I was really saying is that I consider the "expert" in this situation, more than either of us or even biblical scholars, is Matthew himself. Of course that depends on what you believe about the inerrancy of New Testament scripture. I give it 100% authority, but I don't actually have a good bead on your personal beliefs, and I'm glad you're not offended because no offense was intended. If anything, I think it's very profitable for everyone to genuinely and sincerely seek the truth in these discussions, and to follow their own consciences in what they do with whatever they are able to take away from them. Even if the gospel writers state something as immutable truth, when believers sincerely probe these idioms, exploring them for reasonableness and to understand how they fit into God's plan in our lives and in salvation history, it is very profitable imo (hence the value of this thread ).

SO...having said that, getting back to the point...

In Hebrews 4:12, we read that "God's word is alive, it strikes to the heart. It pierces more surely than a two-edged sword." And in the first chapter of John's gospel, we read that Jesus IS the Word, and again in Revelation 21:5 that (behold!) He makes all things new. So this context is the reason why in my view, for Christians, not just prophecy but everything in the old testament (and to an extent even what we find in the new testament, and in our own spiritual journeys) has layers of meaning.

We've been talking about Hosea, but we can basically pick out any passage where the OT is talking about a specific instance and also look at it through the lens of how it impacts our world, our Church, and our individual lives. Here's an example, from Isaiah (41:8-10):

8But you, Israel, my servant,
Jacob, whom I have chosen,
offspring of Abraham my friend

9You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth
and summoned from its far-off places,
To whom I have said, You are my servant;
I chose you, I have not rejected you

10Do not fear: I am with you;
do not be anxious: I am your God.
I will strengthen you, I will help you,
I will uphold you with my victorious right hand.

I assume the (human) author of these verses was thinking of the Nation of Israel, and God's promise that he will redeem them, but most Christians will probably interpret this and most of the uses of the term "Israel" in the OT to also apply to Christ's Church. In the same way, prophesy may imo validly be viewed through multiple lenses.

I have issues with how the word "inerrancy" is applied. If someone wants to claim the Bible is inerrant, I'm totally fine with adopting that language as long as we can be clear on what that means. What constitutes an error? If we use our modern, Western, enlightened metrics for how the text should work, then there are errors all over the place. I disagree with the Bible being inerrant if those things are the measuring stick. If we allow a Middle Eastern Jew from AD 50 or BC 600 to be who they are and don't require that they conform to our literary preferences, then those problems disappear for me and I'm ok with the term "inerrant". I think the Bible is true about the things it is trying to be true about. Hopefully that helps understand where I'm currently at.

(BTW, I have the same thoughts on whether or not Eden was "perfect". Sure, I'll agree with someone that Eden was "perfect" as long as we can be clear on what that means. It was a place where, for a time, the human was alone, which was described as "not good". It was a place where the ground had to be worked by the human. It was a place where there was a cunning serpent and a tree that was off limits. If that fits someone's definition of perfect, then I'm ok with calling it perfect.)

And I think I'd agree with where you are going with the idea of "layers of meaning", but I'd prefer to say "layers of application". "Meaning" to me is the message that is tied to the author's intention and "application" is how later audiences might transfer that message to their own context.

This is all just fun (for me, at least) word games. We may not be that far apart; we just use different words to describe it. Or maybe we are far apart!

I think we're not far apart at all, and you bring up an excellent point about Eden and perfection.

I used the term "inerrant" because I do indeed have a very specific (and Catholic) definition of that word in my mind. The bible is free from error in items of faith and moral law. Not necessarily in terms of empiricism or historicity.

When it comes to "meaning" applying to the author's intent, I would say that I probably view the "co-author" as the Holy Spirit. Having said that, I agree that this is fun and games to some extent. I think it can be profitable for an individual to meditate on these things, to the extent that such meditation can result in a deeper faith life. But understanding the particulars of this discussion is neither sufficient nor necessary for salvation imo. Which is why I think "fun and games" is an apt description. Cheers!

 

[dkp993]

When God Says something it's going to happen.

I have no idea if you care about how your messages are received here, but this is an observation and I hope it's helpful.

I've no doubt you believe:

When God Says something it's going to happen.

I believe that too.

But in my opinion, your statement is heard much more effectively if it's "I believe that when God says something, it's going to happen."

That opens up discussion. A flat statement expressing your opinion as fact (even if you believe it's a fact) closes discussion. Or invites confrontation.

Again, no idea if this is something you care about. But I think it would be helpful as a Christian.

Joe I appreciate the effort, and maybe he’ll hear it from you, but I (and others) have tried countless times to get this message through to him, specifically about effectiveness of getting his message heard. He clearly doesn’t care to modify his approach.

Thanks @dkp993 We'll see. I don't know Paddington personally but I think I have a sense as I know people who I think may see things similarly.

Sometimes, it's about not diluting the message. Lots of Christians feel an obligation (which I think is proper) to keep the scripture as it was intended and not "water it down" or dilute it. I think that's a good thing. But on the other hand, we are called to be effective. And part of being effective means using our brains to understand how a message will be heard.

And I think there are ways to make the message more appealing and still be true to ourselves and to God.

An angle of that is "meeting people where they are". If someone says they don't believe the bible, you can't use a bible verse to tell them they should believe the bible. That kind of thing.

It's what I said above, I think it's more helpful to say, "I believe that when God says something, it's going to happen." instead of a flat "When God says something it's going to happen". Taking one's opinion and stating it as fact is always annoying.

I think it's helpful to flip it around. If someone were trying to convince me to join the Muslim faith, if they said, "Becuase the Koran says __________, it is true", I'd probably not be as receptive. If they'd said, "The Koran says _________ and I believe that's true", that opens a conversation.

It feels like a natural thing. But I also know lots of us, me especially, have blind spots.

100%. I haven’t, and would never, try to tell him what to believe, it’s absolutely his right to believe what he wants. So the fact that he believes the Bible is 100% true and the direct word of God, good for him. And as I’ve said before, people with belief systems like him I actually understand more than those that pick and choose or rely on personal interpretation. But regardless it’s everyone’s own right.

But simply inserting the words “I believe” or “it’s my belief” is far more conducive to having an actual discussion vs his chosen path of “these are undeniable facts” or “it’s 100 true” which only shuts down the conversation with people like myself.

Again I’ve conveyed this to him multiple times, to no avail.

 

[Paddington]

When God Says something it's going to happen.

I have no idea if you care about how your messages are received here, but this is an observation and I hope it's helpful.

I've no doubt you believe:

When God Says something it's going to happen.

I believe that too.

But in my opinion, your statement is heard much more effectively if it's "I believe that when God says something, it's going to happen."

That opens up discussion. A flat statement expressing your opinion as fact (even if you believe it's a fact) closes discussion. Or invites confrontation.

Again, no idea if this is something you care about. But I think it would be helpful as a Christian.

I have mixed feelings about it, but I also believe in absolute truth. Yes I believe that of God says something is going to happen, then there is nothing that can stop it. About a year ago, as I woke up, the very first thought that went through my mind was "It has been appointed for you to be martyred for your faith". I know in my heart that if God appoi ts something to happen, it is decreed by Him, the ruler of the Universe, it will happen. That shooter's mother was a member of that Church.

A few weeks ago, when the shooting was going on, I recalled those words and thought that this may be the time when I would be martyred fir my faith. But God performed a miracle and saved me and a couple hundred people. God has saved my life many times, I should have been dead. A mass shooting in 2003, I should have been dead. My Brother in Law was the first one shot, he was shot in the head, but God directed the bullet to go in his right cheek bone, under his nose, and out his left cheek bone. He has some numbness behind his nose, but he is ok. Many others were killed that day by that gunman. The gunman's mother happened to go to my Church and he was on the prayer list for Salvation. He lived 30 minutes away and just happened by chance to pick that store.

Another time, I was with a Church group at a third Church and two men came into the restaurant with sawed off shot guns. They walked passed out table with nylons on their faces. They robbed the restaurant.

There are still more times when God protected me. I do want to spark conversation, but it's also hard to say "I Believe, rather than declaring boldly that God is in control when there have been so many obvious times that He saved me.

For the sake of encouraging discussion, I will try to use that language, of "I believe ". I do want discussion for sure and I appreciate those willing to engauge here.

 

[Joe Bryant]

For the sake of encouraging discussion, I will try to use that language, of "I believe ". I do want discussion for sure and I appreciate those willing to engauge here.

Thanks. I think and hope that will encourage good discussion. I believe empathy and acknowledging where the other person is with their beliefs as a starting point for good things.

Different opinions are crucial for good discussion. And when it moves more to a, "I understand what you think. I think something different and here's why..." then good things are more likely to happen in my opinion.

 

[BlackCrowes]

James Talarico on Rogan. That’s my kind of Christian

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So the fact that he believes the Bible is 100% true and the direct word of God, good for him. And as I’ve said before, people with belief systems like him I actually understand more than those that pick and choose or rely on personal interpretation

I would think that you have just expressed the beliefs of most of the first few century Jews. While it would be a false statement to say that they read the bible literally themselves as the practice of interpreting long ago events into the context of their day, mixing and matching versus out of context - even rewording them to create new narratives all predate the Christan's, the creative way that Christians picked and choose and created their own interpretations made it difficult to show them how silly their new-fangled beliefs were.

But the idea that any Christian can believe in a literal reading of the bible without reinterpreting what the author's say is also wrong as far as I believe. You literally cannot get past Genesis 2 without irreconcilable differences of fact. In the New Testament the genealogies are irreconcilably in conflict, the birth narratives, the passion stories, etc. etc. if the narrative facts are supposed to agree. I don't believe that the consistency of the narrative is supposed to be the point, as evident by the lack of consistency. The seemingly careless lack of consistency.

But it is right there in the bible that it's not the literal letters, the words, etc. that matter, but the interpretative meaning.

2 Corinthians 3:6 (KJV) states: "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.".

Recently found this site, this an article that I find hard to trudge through but seemingly relevant on the how modern biblical literalism is a modern, not ancient belief. History for Atheists: The Great Myths 11: Biblical Literalism. You'll notice that mentioning 2 Corinthians was done by Augustine and some (most) of the ideas above use its terms.

While not an atheist myself, stuff such as Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet essay is right up my alley. Problematic, but the kind of challenging my beliefs stuff I enjoy. The challenge here being that to be Christian that understands what Jesus (and Paul) actually preached per the earliest references, you need to get past that they were wrong! Don't know how you do that literally. Interpreting how Jesus hadn't yet returned to overthrow evil and judge the living and the dead seems to be largely the point of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

This also means...

I used the term "inerrant" because I do indeed have a very specific (and Catholic) definition of that word in my mind. The bible is free from error in items of faith and moral law.

...that New Testament morality, especially in the earliest writings are in the context of the end of the world being imminent. It is "you're going to die tomorrow morality" so this mundane, everyday stuff doesn't really matter. 2nd Thessalonians is all about saying that fake letter(s) from Paul saying stuff similar to what Paul says in 1st Thessalonians (which is similar to what Jesus advocated) is causing society to no longer function. So "get back to work!" I'll let scholars argue whether 2nd Thessalonians is saying 1st Thessalonians is a forgery, or if 2nd Thessalonians is a forgery, or it is all coincidental as that is above my pay grade.

So, while I'm largely on board with Jesus' and Paul's morality teaching to live as one would in the Kingdom of God (as because this is the Kingdom of God - already), to Love thy Neighbor, some of the "no time to waste" instructions can lead to rather immoral teachings (such as slaves should just go one being slaves). Outside of their historical context these teachings can be immoral, errant. Or so I believe.

 

[Paddington]

James Talarico on Rogan. That’s my kind of Christian

Not heard of him. What is his Ministry?

 

[Psychopav]

James Talarico on Rogan. That’s my kind of Christian

Not heard of him. What is his Ministry?

He's got a very popular show on XM Radio where he does long form interviews with various celebrities and experts or pseudo-experts on various subjects. I don't know if I'd call it a ministry but maybe it is.

 

[Paddington]

James Talarico on Rogan. That’s my kind of Christian

Not heard of him. What is his Ministry?

He's got a very popular show on XM Radio where he does long form interviews with various celebrities and experts or pseudo-experts on various subjects. I don't know if I'd call it a ministry but maybe it is.

If He is leading people to the Bible, the Word of God as the source of Truth, then it is a Ministry. That is the definition of Christian Ministry. Otherwise, it's a show. It might be a very good one, but it's not Ministry per se.

 

[Paddington]

Also, do you think the point of becoming a Christian is to get into heaven, like you're getting a subscription to Amazon Prime? Is loving others and caring for the underprivileged just a means to an end for you? The entire point of this thread seems pretty misguided.

Well then you don't know the scriptures if you think that. I base my beliefs on the scriptures.

Your threads and scripture have very little in common, illustrated clearly and succinctly in the above post. Biblical teaching isn't about "how to get to heaven". It is, as -fish- points out, focused on loving others (not just wives) as Christ loved the church. It's about coming along side people and meeting where they are. Lifting them up and supporting them in their life's journey. It's about doing your best to live a life that is as Christ like as possible and showing people who God is through you.

According to the Scriptures themselves, The purpose of Scripture is for God to bring man to the place of Salvation.

2 Peter 3:15-16 KJV
[15] And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; [16] as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 KJV
[3] For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; [4] who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.


2 Peter 3:9 KJV
[9] The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

[Paddington]

When God Says something it's going to happen.

I have no idea if you care about how your messages are received here, but this is an observation and I hope it's helpful.

I've no doubt you believe:

When God Says something it's going to happen.

I believe that too.

But in my opinion, your statement is heard much more effectively if it's "I believe that when God says something, it's going to happen."

That opens up discussion. A flat statement expressing your opinion as fact (even if you believe it's a fact) closes discussion. Or invites confrontation.

Again, no idea if this is something you care about. But I think it would be helpful as a Christian.

Joe I appreciate the effort, and maybe he’ll hear it from you, but I (and others) have tried countless times to get this message through to him, specifically about effectiveness of getting his message heard. He clearly doesn’t care to modify his approach.

It depends on what the subject is. There are absolute Truths in the Bible and there are Doctrines that are debatable. For instance, when Jesus says that He is the only Way to the Father and nonone gets to the Father, but through Him ( Christ) that is a Biblical fact. It cannot be changed or debated away. If you want to disagree on a Pretribulation Rapture verses a Mid Trib or Post Trib Rapture, that is debatable. The Pre Wrath view is also a fairly recent view that offers an interesting perspective. Yes, there are absolutes in the Bible. Jesus and the Disciples declared them as fact and so did the prophets. They were all hated for it, but would you rather please God or Man? I choose to please God over Men.

Acts 5:28-29 KJV
[28] saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. [29] Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Not arguing anything. The quoted post is just because of that is where the inspiration for this thought came.

Acts 5:28-29 KJV
[28] saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. [29] Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Funny how this happens. Was reading up on Luke 3:22 just yesterday and how it is very likely that the version we predominately have since the fourth century is not original but was later harmonized with Mark and sanitized into orthodoxy. One of the more minor pieces of evidence that Luke 3:22 was very likely changed from the original comes in Acts 5:30-31 (the verses immediately following yours).

Acts: 5:30-31
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Exalted here is something God does to create a new status for Jesus. Something he does presumably after (or at the time of) the resurrection.

Luke 3:22 (as we have it today)
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Luke 3:22 (as it appears in one old manuscript, but also how it is quoted by various early Church fathers - guessing on the KJV wording)
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; today I have begotten you.

In the early days of Christianity there were great debates on when Jesus becomes Christ, when he becomes the "Son of God" in a less generic sense than we are all children of God. Ultimately "he always was" as expressed best in John and hinted at elsewhere wins out and becomes the orthodox belief. But there were competing thoughts. The birth narrative in Matthew is (was) used by some to suggest that Jesus became the "Son of God" at birth, or maybe conception. Others point to events during his life (and resurrection). Early Christians that pointed to Jesus becoming Christ, becoming the "Son of God" at some later points were called adoptionists believing that God adopted Jesus the human being as his son at some point and exalted him to a divine status. Passages suggesting this are sprinkled all over the place, so don't really need another, but...

The variant version of Luke 3:22 which some argue is the original (I'll avoid that debate but make comment later in this post) that was prevalent in at least some quarters of the first few centuries suggest that God "adopted" Jesus at his baptism. The view of the heretic Marcion who was accused of having an edited version of Luke that also omitted the birth narrative. Again, not going to debate it, but at least some number of scholars today believe that the evidence is strong that Marcion's "edit" was actually closer to the original version of Luke. (This is not the only major edit believed to have happened to Luke.) Acts 5:31 is (was?) used by some to support that becoming Christ or "Son of God" happened at the resurrection, or at the very least Jesus becomes "co-equal" (exalted) at the resurrection. The transfiguration is (was?) also pointed to by some as "the" moment.

To me all of that is irrelevant to my faith. If Jesus is slated to become Christ, the son of God next week rather than 2,000 years ago or 8 billion or infinite years ago doesn't really matter much. However, these kinds of tidbits from a historical perspective are just interesting to me. Worth discovering. Acts 5:31 doesn't so much support the "facts" of variant reading since it disagrees on the when (baptism vs resurrection), but instead simply points out that Luke was not necessarily consistent in his Christology. (You can see the same kind of thing in Paul's letters, though the best example (Phil 2:5-?) is likely Paul quoting another contemporary source. And elsewhere.)

Finally, I would like to say that variant Lukes with the "bestowed" 3:22, without a birth narrative, no sweating of blood, among other things probably best preserve the earliest Christian beliefs. I would like to say that, but Luke disagrees with Paul too much in Acts. When Paul says that Paul did such and such and Acts says he did something different (example Galatians 1:17-18 vs Acts 9:18-19*), should we think that Paul is a liar? Or simply that Acts is wrong? So, if Acts gets things wrong then why should Luke be any different? Such a shame in trying to build a faith around it, but it adds another interesting layer of mystery in tracing back to the origins. Makes it all so interesting!

*Well you can contort these (Galatians 1:17-18 vs Acts 9:18-19) into one narrative where Paul [relatively] immediately after his conversion meets the other apostles in Damascus and then Cephas and James again three years later in Jerusalem if you ignore that Paul's entire point in telling the backstory is that he didn't get the gospel he was sharing from the apostles nor discussed it with any of them until much later. Maybe Acts survives intact doing this, but the meaning of Galatians 1 crumbles.

 

[Paddington]

Not arguing anything. The quoted post is just because of that is where the inspiration for this thought came.

Acts 5:28-29 KJV
[28] saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. [29] Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Funny how this happens. Was reading up on Luke 3:22 just yesterday and how it is very likely that the version we predominately have since the fourth century is not original but was later harmonized with Mark and sanitized into orthodoxy. One of the more minor pieces of evidence that Luke 3:22 was very likely changed from the original comes in Acts 5:30-31 (the verses immediately following yours).

Acts: 5:30-31
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Exalted here is something God does to create a new status for Jesus. Something he does presumably after (or at the time of) the resurrection.

Luke 3:22 (as we have it today)
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Luke 3:22 (as it appears in one old manuscript, but also how it is quoted by various early Church fathers - guessing on the KJV wording)
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; today I have begotten you.

In the early days of Christianity there were great debates on when Jesus becomes Christ, when he becomes the "Son of God" in a less generic sense than we are all children of God. Ultimately "he always was" as expressed best in John and hinted at elsewhere wins out and becomes the orthodox belief. But there were competing thoughts. The birth narrative in Matthew is (was) used by some to suggest that Jesus became the "Son of God" at birth, or maybe conception. Others point to events during his life (and resurrection). Early Christians that pointed to Jesus becoming Christ, becoming the "Son of God" at some later points were called adoptionists believing that God adopted Jesus the human being as his son at some point and exalted him to a divine status. Passages suggesting this are sprinkled all over the place, so don't really need another, but...

The variant version of Luke 3:22 which some argue is the original (I'll avoid that debate but make comment later in this post) that was prevalent in at least some quarters of the first few centuries suggest that God "adopted" Jesus at his baptism. The view of the heretic Marcion who was accused of having an edited version of Luke that also omitted the birth narrative. Again, not going to debate it, but at least some number of scholars today believe that the evidence is strong that Marcion's "edit" was actually closer to the original version of Luke. (This is not the only major edit believed to have happened to Luke.) Acts 5:31 is (was?) used by some to support that becoming Christ or "Son of God" happened at the resurrection, or at the very least Jesus becomes "co-equal" (exalted) at the resurrection. The transfiguration is (was?) also pointed to by some as "the" moment.

To me all of that is irrelevant to my faith. If Jesus is slated to become Christ, the son of God next week rather than 2,000 years ago or 8 billion or infinite years ago doesn't really matter much. However, these kinds of tidbits from a historical perspective are just interesting to me. Worth discovering. Acts 5:31 doesn't so much support the "facts" of variant reading since it disagrees on the when (baptism vs resurrection), but instead simply points out that Luke was not necessarily consistent in his Christology. (You can see the same kind of thing in Paul's letters, though the best example (Phil 2:5-?) is likely Paul quoting another contemporary source. And elsewhere.)

Finally, I would like to say that variant Lukes with the "bestowed" 3:22, without a birth narrative, no sweating of blood, among other things probably best preserve the earliest Christian beliefs. I would like to say that, but Luke disagrees with Paul too much in Acts. When Paul says that Paul did such and such and Acts says he did something different (example Galatians 1:17-18 vs Acts 9:18-19*), should we think that Paul is a liar? Or simply that Acts is wrong? So, if Acts gets things wrong then why should Luke be any different? Such a shame in trying to build a faith around it, but it adds another interesting layer of mystery in tracing back to the origins. Makes it all so interesting!

*Well you can contort these (Galatians 1:17-18 vs Acts 9:18-19) into one narrative where Paul [relatively] immediately after his conversion meets the other apostles in Damascus and then Cephas and James again three years later in Jerusalem if you ignore that Paul's entire point in telling the backstory is that he didn't get the gospel he was sharing from the apostles nor discussed it with any of them until much later. Maybe Acts survives intact doing this, but the meaning of Galatians 1 crumbles.

First of all those are different translations, they aren't different versions. There were no changes made with the Bible. But also the current translation matches psalm 2:7

Psalm 2:7 KJV
[7] I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

According to the teachers that I have heard it's that after Christ died and rose from the dead and that is when God said this day have I begotten thee.

I would need to see these supposed contradictions that you say Paul has with Acts.

Paul after his conversion went on to Arabia and many believe it was to mount sinai. From there please believe that the Risen Christ gave him his doctrine of grace for the church. His Doctrine is different from the doctrine of the 12. The doctrine of the 12 was for Israel who were still under the law and about to enter the kingdom age. That is a completely different dispensation from what Paul taught to the grace age Church.

 

[Psychopav]

Not arguing anything. The quoted post is just because of that is where the inspiration for this thought came.

Acts 5:28-29 KJV
[28] saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. [29] Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Funny how this happens. Was reading up on Luke 3:22 just yesterday and how it is very likely that the version we predominately have since the fourth century is not original but was later harmonized with Mark and sanitized into orthodoxy. One of the more minor pieces of evidence that Luke 3:22 was very likely changed from the original comes in Acts 5:30-31 (the verses immediately following yours).

Acts: 5:30-31
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Exalted here is something God does to create a new status for Jesus. Something he does presumably after (or at the time of) the resurrection.

Luke 3:22 (as we have it today)
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Luke 3:22 (as it appears in one old manuscript, but also how it is quoted by various early Church fathers - guessing on the KJV wording)
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; today I have begotten you.

In the early days of Christianity there were great debates on when Jesus becomes Christ, when he becomes the "Son of God" in a less generic sense than we are all children of God. Ultimately "he always was" as expressed best in John and hinted at elsewhere wins out and becomes the orthodox belief. But there were competing thoughts. The birth narrative in Matthew is (was) used by some to suggest that Jesus became the "Son of God" at birth, or maybe conception. Others point to events during his life (and resurrection). Early Christians that pointed to Jesus becoming Christ, becoming the "Son of God" at some later points were called adoptionists believing that God adopted Jesus the human being as his son at some point and exalted him to a divine status. Passages suggesting this are sprinkled all over the place, so don't really need another, but...

The variant version of Luke 3:22 which some argue is the original (I'll avoid that debate but make comment later in this post) that was prevalent in at least some quarters of the first few centuries suggest that God "adopted" Jesus at his baptism. The view of the heretic Marcion who was accused of having an edited version of Luke that also omitted the birth narrative. Again, not going to debate it, but at least some number of scholars today believe that the evidence is strong that Marcion's "edit" was actually closer to the original version of Luke. (This is not the only major edit believed to have happened to Luke.) Acts 5:31 is (was?) used by some to support that becoming Christ or "Son of God" happened at the resurrection, or at the very least Jesus becomes "co-equal" (exalted) at the resurrection. The transfiguration is (was?) also pointed to by some as "the" moment.

To me all of that is irrelevant to my faith. If Jesus is slated to become Christ, the son of God next week rather than 2,000 years ago or 8 billion or infinite years ago doesn't really matter much. However, these kinds of tidbits from a historical perspective are just interesting to me. Worth discovering. Acts 5:31 doesn't so much support the "facts" of variant reading since it disagrees on the when (baptism vs resurrection), but instead simply points out that Luke was not necessarily consistent in his Christology. (You can see the same kind of thing in Paul's letters, though the best example (Phil 2:5-?) is likely Paul quoting another contemporary source. And elsewhere.)

Finally, I would like to say that variant Lukes with the "bestowed" 3:22, without a birth narrative, no sweating of blood, among other things probably best preserve the earliest Christian beliefs. I would like to say that, but Luke disagrees with Paul too much in Acts. When Paul says that Paul did such and such and Acts says he did something different (example Galatians 1:17-18 vs Acts 9:18-19*), should we think that Paul is a liar? Or simply that Acts is wrong? So, if Acts gets things wrong then why should Luke be any different? Such a shame in trying to build a faith around it, but it adds another interesting layer of mystery in tracing back to the origins. Makes it all so interesting!

*Well you can contort these (Galatians 1:17-18 vs Acts 9:18-19) into one narrative where Paul [relatively] immediately after his conversion meets the other apostles in Damascus and then Cephas and James again three years later in Jerusalem if you ignore that Paul's entire point in telling the backstory is that he didn't get the gospel he was sharing from the apostles nor discussed it with any of them until much later. Maybe Acts survives intact doing this, but the meaning of Galatians 1 crumbles.

First of all those are different translations, they aren't different versions. There were no changes made with the Bible. But also the current translation matches psalm 2:7

Psalm 2:7 KJV
[7] I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

According to the teachers that I have heard it's that after Christ died and rose from the dead and that is when God said this day have I begotten thee.

I would need to see these supposed contradictions that you say Paul has with Acts.

Paul after his conversion went on to Arabia and many believe it was to mount sinai. From there please believe that the Risen Christ gave him his doctrine of grace for the church. His Doctrine is different from the doctrine of the 12. The doctrine of the 12 was for Israel who were still under the law and about to enter the kingdom age. That is a completely different dispensation from what Paul taught to the grace age Church.

I'd say you have a long row to hoe to establish the bolded. Just throwing it out there as if it is established mainstream Christian belief is curious (and inaccurate).

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

First of all those are different translations, they aren't different versions. There were no changes made with the Bible. But also the current translation matches psalm 2:7

Psalm 2:7 KJV
[7] I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

According to the teachers that I have heard it's that after Christ died and rose from the dead and that is when God said this day have I begotten thee.

No, while the Codex Bezae has both Greek and Latin parts, this passage is from the full copy of Luke in original Greek. Some have suggested that this is a scribal error harmonizing Luke to Psalm 2:7, but since this represents a Christology that was losing favor when it was written this seems less likely than the alternative that other scribes were harmonizing to Mark. But who knows!

I have also reads bits and pieces that Acts is very different in this manuscript and is also considered by at least some scholars to be closer to the original, but I haven't read anything comprehensive on this. I have also read the trashing of this manuscript for its inauthenticity and the scribe that produced it. I have even read it speculated that this manuscript's scribe might have been -- God forbid -- a woman (I wish I remembered where).

I'm not making a theological argument, agreeing with those that think this is closer to the original, or agreeing with those that think this "trash" had to have been produced by a woman. No, I'm merely find learning these things entertaining. Hopefully, I'll stumble upon a good commentary on its version of Acts someday.

Finally, your last sentence works with the Acts 5:30-31 which was being exalted presumably after the resurrection, but Luke 3:22 is about what is said at Jesus' baptism.

Oh, and there have been more variants to the surviving Biblical manuscripts than we count. Most complete irrelevant to anything, but most ain't the same as all.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I would need to see these supposed contradictions that you say Paul has with Acts.

There are a few. We early dealt with the question of with whether Paul faithfully lived by the Law as Acts says at the end of his life, or if Paul followed the Law unless breaking it served his greater purpose as he says himself. That is a bit more abstract. Today's example is simpler. Did Paul meet the apostles, some or all in Damascus almost immediately after his conversion and then later again in Jerusalem?

Acts
18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

Saul in Damascus and Jerusalem​

Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. ...

26 When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. 28 So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord.

Or did he just meet a two of them (Peter and James) in Jerusalem three years later?

15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

Most apologetics say Galatian's fits just fine in the Acts story with Galatians just not mentioning every detail. Except that ignores the point of Paul telling this back story at all which is that the gospel he was sharing came from Jesus (or God) and not from the other apostles. If he meets them in Damascus at the beginning and leaves that out, it undermines the point he is making about his gospel and makes the entire telling of the back story pointless.

Finally, I am going to quote this nonsense from here. I mean it is solid for certain believers, but this is a ridiculous argument that discrepancies between Luke and Paul are a good thing if the audience has any hint of critical thinking. (Oh, and even giving the Bible all the benefit of doubt Luke is mostly a researcher, only occasionally a witness as he says so himself.) But beyond the horrible points, even this agrees that Luke (in Acts) and Paul differ. And as such Luke's historicity in Acts needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and thus the same for the gospel. That shouldn't really be a point of contention, because history as we think of it is not really the point.

Luke and Paul do not have 100 percent identical accounts because they are from different points-of-view. Furthermore, they have different reasons for writing in their respective books. The testimonies of independent witnesses will always have slight differences, even when describing the same event. That actually strengthens their claim for authenticity. There is no word-for-word account provided by both Luke and Paul, so the Bible critic cannot cry out, “Fabrication!” (Just a little food for thought, friend!)

 

[Sparky Polastri]

@dgreen

Have any opportunity to consider my assertion/interpretation from a few pages ago suggesting Matthew and Hosea both were talking about Israel? Just wondering your thoughts.

 

[dgreen]

Not arguing anything. The quoted post is just because of that is where the inspiration for this thought came.

Acts 5:28-29 KJV
[28] saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. [29] Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Funny how this happens. Was reading up on Luke 3:22 just yesterday and how it is very likely that the version we predominately have since the fourth century is not original but was later harmonized with Mark and sanitized into orthodoxy. One of the more minor pieces of evidence that Luke 3:22 was very likely changed from the original comes in Acts 5:30-31 (the verses immediately following yours).

Acts: 5:30-31
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Exalted here is something God does to create a new status for Jesus. Something he does presumably after (or at the time of) the resurrection.

Luke 3:22 (as we have it today)
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Luke 3:22 (as it appears in one old manuscript, but also how it is quoted by various early Church fathers - guessing on the KJV wording)
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; today I have begotten you.

In the early days of Christianity there were great debates on when Jesus becomes Christ, when he becomes the "Son of God" in a less generic sense than we are all children of God. Ultimately "he always was" as expressed best in John and hinted at elsewhere wins out and becomes the orthodox belief. But there were competing thoughts. The birth narrative in Matthew is (was) used by some to suggest that Jesus became the "Son of God" at birth, or maybe conception. Others point to events during his life (and resurrection). Early Christians that pointed to Jesus becoming Christ, becoming the "Son of God" at some later points were called adoptionists believing that God adopted Jesus the human being as his son at some point and exalted him to a divine status. Passages suggesting this are sprinkled all over the place, so don't really need another, but...

The variant version of Luke 3:22 which some argue is the original (I'll avoid that debate but make comment later in this post) that was prevalent in at least some quarters of the first few centuries suggest that God "adopted" Jesus at his baptism. The view of the heretic Marcion who was accused of having an edited version of Luke that also omitted the birth narrative. Again, not going to debate it, but at least some number of scholars today believe that the evidence is strong that Marcion's "edit" was actually closer to the original version of Luke. (This is not the only major edit believed to have happened to Luke.) Acts 5:31 is (was?) used by some to support that becoming Christ or "Son of God" happened at the resurrection, or at the very least Jesus becomes "co-equal" (exalted) at the resurrection. The transfiguration is (was?) also pointed to by some as "the" moment.

To me all of that is irrelevant to my faith. If Jesus is slated to become Christ, the son of God next week rather than 2,000 years ago or 8 billion or infinite years ago doesn't really matter much. However, these kinds of tidbits from a historical perspective are just interesting to me. Worth discovering. Acts 5:31 doesn't so much support the "facts" of variant reading since it disagrees on the when (baptism vs resurrection), but instead simply points out that Luke was not necessarily consistent in his Christology. (You can see the same kind of thing in Paul's letters, though the best example (Phil 2:5-?) is likely Paul quoting another contemporary source. And elsewhere.)

Finally, I would like to say that variant Lukes with the "bestowed" 3:22, without a birth narrative, no sweating of blood, among other things probably best preserve the earliest Christian beliefs. I would like to say that, but Luke disagrees with Paul too much in Acts. When Paul says that Paul did such and such and Acts says he did something different (example Galatians 1:17-18 vs Acts 9:18-19*), should we think that Paul is a liar? Or simply that Acts is wrong? So, if Acts gets things wrong then why should Luke be any different? Such a shame in trying to build a faith around it, but it adds another interesting layer of mystery in tracing back to the origins. Makes it all so interesting!

*Well you can contort these (Galatians 1:17-18 vs Acts 9:18-19) into one narrative where Paul [relatively] immediately after his conversion meets the other apostles in Damascus and then Cephas and James again three years later in Jerusalem if you ignore that Paul's entire point in telling the backstory is that he didn't get the gospel he was sharing from the apostles nor discussed it with any of them until much later. Maybe Acts survives intact doing this, but the meaning of Galatians 1 crumbles.

I remember when I first heard about adoptionism, I completely dismissed it. But then, so many verses started to jump out at me. For example, I all of sudden found the wording in Acts 2 interesting: "It was this Jesus whom God raised up...God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." If someone starts with the assumption of adoptionism (that Jesus was originally just a man who God chose to then exalt to god-status at His right hand), I think one can see that in some places.

Since you said you've been reading Ehrman, is this where you came across this? I've read him say that he used to see adoptionism as sort of an insult to Jesus but over time he came to see as a higher status based on his understanding of adoption in the Roman Empire. For example, wasn't Caesar Augustus the adopted son of Julius Caesar? So, if Mark was a Gospel to Rome, it could make sense for him to make it "today I have begotten you" to maybe work with the metaphor of a Roman adoption?

Matthew has "in whom I delight", matching Luke. This likely blends Psalm 2 with Isaiah 42, Maybe Mark just didn't want to link the chosen servant idea into the baptism?

Similar language is at the Transfiguration. Interestingly, Mark leaves out the Isaiah 42 "in whom I delight" from there, too. Matthew sticks with "in whom I delight" but Luke (in some manuscripts, at least) has "my chosen one". Matthew and Luke are both saying the same thing, just with different words, since both of those references come from Isaiah 42. Then all three include "listen to him" which is probably an allusion to Deuteronomy 18:15.

Does Mark play down the servant angle of Jesus throughout his entire Gospel more than Matthew and Luke? I just find it interesting that he excludes the chosen servant allusion at both the baptism and transfiguration.

BTW, here's the NET footnote on Luke 3:22 - Instead of “You are my one dear Son; in you I take great delight,” one Greek ms and several Latin mss and church fathers (D it Ju [Cl] Meth Hil Aug) quote Ps 2:7 outright with “You are my Son; today I have fathered you.” But the weight of the ms testimony is against this reading.

And here's their note on Luke 9:35 - Most mss, especially the later ones, have ἀγαπητός (agapētos, “the one I love”; A C* W ƒ13 33 Maj it), or ἀγαπητὸς ἐν ᾧ (ἠ)υδόκησα (agapētos en hō (ē)udokēsa, “the one I love, in whom I am well pleased”; C3 D Ψ) here, instead of ἐκλελεγμένος (eklelegmenos, “the Chosen One”), but these variants are probably assimilations to Matt 17:5 and Mark 9:7. The text behind the translation also enjoys excellent support from P45,75 א B L Ξ (579) 892 1241 co.

 

[dgreen]

It's interesting that you see both sons as being Israel and then reach a very similar conclusion about Matthew's main point (saving Israel vs a second Exodus...basically the same thing). God brought his son, Israel, out of Egypt before and he'll bring his son, Israel, out again - this time with Jesus leading the way. That's cool. I'll have to give it some thought that maybe Matthew was also referring to Israel as the son.

@Sparky Polastri

Not sure if you caught this response earlier. Sorry, I haven't thought about it more. I think both readings can lead to the same conclusion. It's kind of messing with my mind to think of Matthew's "son" as Israel. Similarly, I remember hearing someone suggest “for God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son” to also possibly be read as Israel (and Jesus, course). I wonder if a lot of “son” language in the NT carries a double meaning. Jesus carries out the mission of Israel, God’s son.

I think what's most important is noticing Matthew setting up major Exodus/Moses themes with Jesus. And that I think can be done whether or not Matthew's son is Israel or Jesus, or both. I would like to know, though, what Matthew intended.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

It's interesting that you see both sons as being Israel and then reach a very similar conclusion about Matthew's main point (saving Israel vs a second Exodus...basically the same thing). God brought his son, Israel, out of Egypt before and he'll bring his son, Israel, out again - this time with Jesus leading the way. That's cool. I'll have to give it some thought that maybe Matthew was also referring to Israel as the son.

@Sparky Polastri

Not sure if you caught this response earlier. Sorry, I haven't thought about it more. I think both readings can lead to the same conclusion. It's kind of messing with my mind to think of Matthew's "son" as Israel. Similarly, I remember hearing someone suggest “for God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son” to also possibly be read as Israel (and Jesus, course). I wonder if a lot of “son” language in the NT carries a double meaning. Jesus carries out the mission of Israel, God’s son.

I think what's most important is noticing Matthew setting up major Exodus/Moses themes with Jesus. And that I think can be done whether or not Matthew's son is Israel or Jesus, or both. I would like to know, though, what Matthew intended.

No worries. I had seen the other comment. Just checking in

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Since you said you've been reading Ehrman, is this where you came across this?

Yes and No.

I don't remember the idea of adoption was ever mentioned in any of those, but twenty five or so years ago there were a whole bunch of early Christianity documentaries. PBS had From Jesus to Christ, ABC had Peter Jennings Presents The Search for Jesus, NBC had The Last Days of Jesus (where there is a featurette on the DVD about brain stimulus), and of course cable networks like the History, Discovery, Nat Geo cranked these out a dime a dozen. These all lead be down this path. From Jesus to Christ being the "gold standard", though it certainly has a bias and Ehrman will tell you he was not yet established when it was produced. But the semi random reading since found those ideas.

But Luke 3:22 and the introduction to the Codex Bezae are from Ehrman, at least to the degree it registered. From the follow up reply though you'll notice that when something like this catches my interest I go hunting (Googling) other takes on it. Or hit links in comments (I don't think that happened here). So Ehrman's blog has sort of served as a jumping off point. I read entry after entry until something catches my interest, or something triggers an earlier reading as these Didymus the Blind entries were ones I read a month or so ago and for whatever reason I circled back this week and went exploring. For example, Ehrman - at least not yet hasn't mentioned that Acts is rather different in Bezae or that this is one of the earliest known examples of "extended" Mark. Those pieces came from elsewhere. Hopefully, I'll stumble on something less apologetic and more scholarly on these topics as, at least this week I'm interested. (Maybe)

Sometimes I retain a nugget of what was said and forget the where (like the idea that this Codex is so off that it must have had a woman for a scribe - I probably laughed too hard to keep track of anything else). One of those cases is that there is an Old Testament piece of scripture that Matthew (I think) puts into the mouths of someone where, because Matthew (I think) was using the Greek translation rather than the Hebrew (sort of original) wouldn't actually make sense to a first century Jew. But I cannot remember any of the details to re-find it. I assume it was Ehrman and recent, but who knows. That would have been a useful though exercise in several of the recent discussions, including your how to deal with those most versed in scripture (at the time) not recognizing Jesus the same way Christian newbies to scripture did.

Back to the rest of your post as it deserves more thought than I have given so far.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

BTW, here's the NET footnote on Luke 3:22 - Instead of “You are my one dear Son; in you I take great delight,” one Greek ms and several Latin mss and church fathers (D it Ju [Cl] Meth Hil Aug) quote Ps 2:7 outright with “You are my Son; today I have fathered you.” But the weight of the ms testimony is against this reading.

Basically, this is saying that there are thousands of manuscripts that read it one way, including earlier manuscripts and just one late fourth, earlier fifth century (Bezae) and one third century fragment (P4) that reads it any other way. So, the manuscript evidence is overwhelming that Bezae is the deviation from the original. Where Didymus the Blind comes in is that Ehrman's PHD dissertation was on using the writings of the church fathers, specifically the quotations of scripture to place the scripture to a time and place. (Blog entries from Aug 2013). There are all kinds of issues with this of course. It is these church father quotations and even non canonical writings that are used as evidence in favor of the Bezae reading.

As I said I'm less interested in arguing a side here and much more interested in reading about the debate, the issues, the theories why one reading would be favored over another both today in church, but also 2000 years ago in that context, etc. While obviously having alternative readings that suggest very different theological perspectives can hinder understanding what the author meant to say, I think it can also help keep things in perspective that contrary to the assertions of some that scripture is one size fits all with only one way to read it, one way to understand it. Because if that is the case then odds are overwhelming that we all read it wrong.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

And here's their note on Luke 9:35 - Most mss, especially the later ones, have ἀγαπητός (agapētos, “the one I love”; A C* W ƒ13 33 Maj it), or ἀγαπητὸς ἐν ᾧ (ἠ)υδόκησα (agapētos en hō (ē)udokēsa, “the one I love, in whom I am well pleased”; C3 D Ψ) here, instead of ἐκλελεγμένος (eklelegmenos, “the Chosen One”), but these variants are probably assimilations to Matt 17:5 and Mark 9:7. The text behind the translation also enjoys excellent support from P45,75 א B L Ξ (579) 892 1241 co.

Early is usually better. Which works against Bezae.

One of the stray thoughts from all of this is that a few weeks back there was a discussion among real life friends on who had watched The Chosen. Which makes it so obvious to me that the idea that Jesus was "chosen" at some point is so embedded in Christian thought without anyone thinking that the idea conflicts with the idea that Jesus is the Word that has existed as is since the beginning. I guess we'll shortly read that Jesus was [not] "The Chosen", but Mary was, or maybe the first century peasants in Galilee were. There was a time when I twisted myself into knots to explain why these are not conflicting ideas, but I am long past that. Now I just "Let the mystery be" .

Edited to add [not] as originally intended.

 

[dgreen]

And here's their note on Luke 9:35 - Most mss, especially the later ones, have ἀγαπητός (agapētos, “the one I love”; A C* W ƒ13 33 Maj it), or ἀγαπητὸς ἐν ᾧ (ἠ)υδόκησα (agapētos en hō (ē)udokēsa, “the one I love, in whom I am well pleased”; C3 D Ψ) here, instead of ἐκλελεγμένος (eklelegmenos, “the Chosen One”), but these variants are probably assimilations to Matt 17:5 and Mark 9:7. The text behind the translation also enjoys excellent support from P45,75 א B L Ξ (579) 892 1241 co.

Early is usually better. Which works against Bezae.

One of the stray thoughts from all of this is that a few weeks back there was a discussion among real life friends on who had watched The Chosen. Which makes it so obvious to me that the idea that Jesus was "chosen" at some point is so embedded in Christian thought without anyone thinking that the idea conflicts with the idea that Jesus is the Word that has existed as is since the beginning. I guess we'll shortly read that Jesus was [not] "The Chosen", but Mary was, or maybe the first century peasants in Galilee were. There was a time when I twisted myself into knots to explain why these are not conflicting ideas, but I am long past that. Now I just "Let the mystery be" .

Edited to add [not] as originally intended.

Things existing before creation is an old Jewish tradition.

Torah (Wisdom) was said to be one of those things and it's possible John is linking Jesus to Torah's/Wisdom's existence preceding creation when he writes "In the beginning was the word..." Another thing this mentions is that "God contemplated creating" Israel. Israel existed before creation in the sense that they were part of God's plan. In a way, they existed from the beginning yet were at a particular time chosen to be God's ambassadors.

Not really any answers here; just contributing to the mystery. Your post just reminded me of this idea in Judaism of certain things existing before creation. I'm not sure how an ancient Israelite would have thought about the idea of being chosen in real time and space for a particular mission vs also "existing" long before. From what I understand, their culture was completely ok with paradoxes and didn't feel the need to resolve them or reject one idea in order to accept the other.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

From what I understand, their culture was completely ok with paradoxes and didn't feel the need to resolve them or reject one idea in order to accept the other.

I think "their culture" applies to pretty much everyone at the time of these writings. Jew and non Jew. Scripture is full of contradictions even among the same writer. (Cheating with Ehrman's blog.) In most cases they are just different ways of looking at the same thing, like when Paul tries to describe how salvation works (judicial and participationist among others - April/May 2014). Or the quoting of earlier, maybe superseded doctrine Romans 1:3-4. Or just the poor editing in mixing and matching various sources. The seams theory. So going back to From Jesus to Christ someone in there says something along the lines of they don't understand why we worry about contradictions when the gospel writers clearly didn't. Or maybe, put it this way. If Mark was the perfect word of God, why did Matthew change any of it? Why did Luke?

I'm not sure how an ancient Israelite would have thought about the idea of being chosen in real time and space for a particular mission vs also "existing" long before.

I just find it funny that Christians mix and match the concepts with Jesus and don't even notice.

Was he exalted? Or was he just always was?
Yes!

 

[dgreen]

From what I understand, their culture was completely ok with paradoxes and didn't feel the need to resolve them or reject one idea in order to accept the other.

I think "their culture" applies to pretty much everyone at the time of these writings. Jew and non Jew. Scripture is full of contradictions even among the same writer. (Cheating with Ehrman's blog.) In most cases they are just different ways of looking at the same thing, like when Paul tries to describe how salvation works (judicial and participationist among others - April/May 2014). Or the quoting of earlier, maybe superseded doctrine Romans 1:3-4. Or just the poor editing in mixing and matching various sources. The seams theory. So going back to From Jesus to Christ someone in there says something along the lines of they don't understand why we worry about contradictions when the gospel writers clearly didn't. Or maybe, put it this way. If Mark was the perfect word of God, why did Matthew change any of it? Why did Luke?

I'm not sure how an ancient Israelite would have thought about the idea of being chosen in real time and space for a particular mission vs also "existing" long before.

I just find it funny that Christians mix and match the concepts with Jesus and don't even notice.

Was he exalted? Or was he just always was?
Yes!

Yeah, not just Jews. All of the ANE. It was those Greeks who focused on reason and we are children of Greek thought.

I wonder if some of this is our love for doctrine and creeds. Had Jews remained a significant part of the Jesus movement for 100s of years, would they have cared about the councils debating Jesus’ identity?

 

[Paddington]

Not arguing anything. The quoted post is just because of that is where the inspiration for this thought came.

Acts 5:28-29 KJV
[28] saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. [29] Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Funny how this happens. Was reading up on Luke 3:22 just yesterday and how it is very likely that the version we predominately have since the fourth century is not original but was later harmonized with Mark and sanitized into orthodoxy. One of the more minor pieces of evidence that Luke 3:22 was very likely changed from the original comes in Acts 5:30-31 (the verses immediately following yours).

Acts: 5:30-31
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Exalted here is something God does to create a new status for Jesus. Something he does presumably after (or at the time of) the resurrection.

Luke 3:22 (as we have it today)
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Luke 3:22 (as it appears in one old manuscript, but also how it is quoted by various early Church fathers - guessing on the KJV wording)
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; today I have begotten you.

In the early days of Christianity there were great debates on when Jesus becomes Christ, when he becomes the "Son of God" in a less generic sense than we are all children of God. Ultimately "he always was" as expressed best in John and hinted at elsewhere wins out and becomes the orthodox belief. But there were competing thoughts. The birth narrative in Matthew is (was) used by some to suggest that Jesus became the "Son of God" at birth, or maybe conception. Others point to events during his life (and resurrection). Early Christians that pointed to Jesus becoming Christ, becoming the "Son of God" at some later points were called adoptionists believing that God adopted Jesus the human being as his son at some point and exalted him to a divine status. Passages suggesting this are sprinkled all over the place, so don't really need another, but...

The variant version of Luke 3:22 which some argue is the original (I'll avoid that debate but make comment later in this post) that was prevalent in at least some quarters of the first few centuries suggest that God "adopted" Jesus at his baptism. The view of the heretic Marcion who was accused of having an edited version of Luke that also omitted the birth narrative. Again, not going to debate it, but at least some number of scholars today believe that the evidence is strong that Marcion's "edit" was actually closer to the original version of Luke. (This is not the only major edit believed to have happened to Luke.) Acts 5:31 is (was?) used by some to support that becoming Christ or "Son of God" happened at the resurrection, or at the very least Jesus becomes "co-equal" (exalted) at the resurrection. The transfiguration is (was?) also pointed to by some as "the" moment.

To me all of that is irrelevant to my faith. If Jesus is slated to become Christ, the son of God next week rather than 2,000 years ago or 8 billion or infinite years ago doesn't really matter much. However, these kinds of tidbits from a historical perspective are just interesting to me. Worth discovering. Acts 5:31 doesn't so much support the "facts" of variant reading since it disagrees on the when (baptism vs resurrection), but instead simply points out that Luke was not necessarily consistent in his Christology. (You can see the same kind of thing in Paul's letters, though the best example (Phil 2:5-?) is likely Paul quoting another contemporary source. And elsewhere.)

Finally, I would like to say that variant Lukes with the "bestowed" 3:22, without a birth narrative, no sweating of blood, among other things probably best preserve the earliest Christian beliefs. I would like to say that, but Luke disagrees with Paul too much in Acts. When Paul says that Paul did such and such and Acts says he did something different (example Galatians 1:17-18 vs Acts 9:18-19*), should we think that Paul is a liar? Or simply that Acts is wrong? So, if Acts gets things wrong then why should Luke be any different? Such a shame in trying to build a faith around it, but it adds another interesting layer of mystery in tracing back to the origins. Makes it all so interesting!

*Well you can contort these (Galatians 1:17-18 vs Acts 9:18-19) into one narrative where Paul [relatively] immediately after his conversion meets the other apostles in Damascus and then Cephas and James again three years later in Jerusalem if you ignore that Paul's entire point in telling the backstory is that he didn't get the gospel he was sharing from the apostles nor discussed it with any of them until much later. Maybe Acts survives intact doing this, but the meaning of Galatians 1 crumbles.

First of all those are different translations, they aren't different versions. There were no changes made with the Bible. But also the current translation matches psalm 2:7

Psalm 2:7 KJV
[7] I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

According to the teachers that I have heard it's that after Christ died and rose from the dead and that is when God said this day have I begotten thee.

I would need to see these supposed contradictions that you say Paul has with Acts.

Paul after his conversion went on to Arabia and many believe it was to mount sinai. From there please believe that the Risen Christ gave him his doctrine of grace for the church. His Doctrine is different from the doctrine of the 12. The doctrine of the 12 was for Israel who were still under the law and about to enter the kingdom age. That is a completely different dispensation from what Paul taught to the grace age Church.

I'd say you have a long row to hoe to establish the bolded. Just throwing it out there as if it is established mainstream Christian belief is curious (and inaccurate).

I studied this for a very long time. I was raised in the traditional dispensational View. I believed that the dispensations were Old Testament and New Testament. I believed that the Old Testament was not for today in the New Testament was. But as I started the Bible under a great teacher I learned that that is not the place where we divide the scriptures. We divide the scriptures Paul's writings versus the rest of scripture. Paul's ratings alone were written to the church. And when you separate his writings from the rest of scripture it solves a multitude of doctrinal issues. There's a lot of passages that support my view.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I studied this for a very long time. I was raised in the traditional dispensational View. I believed that the dispensations were Old Testament and New Testament. I believed that the Old Testament was not for today in the New Testament was. But as I started the Bible under a great teacher I learned that that is not the place where we divide the scriptures. We divide the scriptures Paul's writings versus the rest of scripture. Paul's ratings alone were written to the church. And when you separate his writings from the rest of scripture it solves a multitude of doctrinal issues. There's a lot of passages that support my view.

This perspective seems to be pretty much lifted straight out of Hebrews. Is that fair? Somewhat accurate? Or demonstrating a lot of [admitted] ignorance of your "Mid Acts" beliefs?

In one of the closed threads I used Hebrews to suggest that I found it funny that Christians clung to the Ten Commandments when Hebrews explicitly states that all of this is "obsolete". But I also figured that a lot of Christians trivialize Hebrews, taking a Luther view that it had a valuable teaching or two but it departed too much from doctrine, doesn't even claim itself to be from Paul, and for these and other reasons should have never been in the canon. Surprisingly in that thread this didn't happen, and even a post embraced Hebrews. But I still think most Christians don't have much of a view at all of Hebrews, and when they do it is still kind of "meh".

Now based on your posts where you describe or hint more about your "Mid Acts" beliefs, I am wondering if you (both you, and those of your form of faith) have a more elevated view of Hebrews? Or am I just letting my mind get carried away linking a similarity or two and then just running away with it?

 

[Psychopav]

From what I understand, their culture was completely ok with paradoxes and didn't feel the need to resolve them or reject one idea in order to accept the other.

I think "their culture" applies to pretty much everyone at the time of these writings. Jew and non Jew. Scripture is full of contradictions even among the same writer. (Cheating with Ehrman's blog.) In most cases they are just different ways of looking at the same thing, like when Paul tries to describe how salvation works (judicial and participationist among others - April/May 2014). Or the quoting of earlier, maybe superseded doctrine Romans 1:3-4. Or just the poor editing in mixing and matching various sources. The seams theory. So going back to From Jesus to Christ someone in there says something along the lines of they don't understand why we worry about contradictions when the gospel writers clearly didn't. Or maybe, put it this way. If Mark was the perfect word of God, why did Matthew change any of it? Why did Luke?

I'm not sure how an ancient Israelite would have thought about the idea of being chosen in real time and space for a particular mission vs also "existing" long before.

I just find it funny that Christians mix and match the concepts with Jesus and don't even notice.

Was he exalted? Or was he just always was?
Yes!

Why can't it be both?

 

[Psychopav]

Not arguing anything. The quoted post is just because of that is where the inspiration for this thought came.

Acts 5:28-29 KJV
[28] saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. [29] Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Funny how this happens. Was reading up on Luke 3:22 just yesterday and how it is very likely that the version we predominately have since the fourth century is not original but was later harmonized with Mark and sanitized into orthodoxy. One of the more minor pieces of evidence that Luke 3:22 was very likely changed from the original comes in Acts 5:30-31 (the verses immediately following yours).

Acts: 5:30-31
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Exalted here is something God does to create a new status for Jesus. Something he does presumably after (or at the time of) the resurrection.

Luke 3:22 (as we have it today)
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Luke 3:22 (as it appears in one old manuscript, but also how it is quoted by various early Church fathers - guessing on the KJV wording)
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; today I have begotten you.

In the early days of Christianity there were great debates on when Jesus becomes Christ, when he becomes the "Son of God" in a less generic sense than we are all children of God. Ultimately "he always was" as expressed best in John and hinted at elsewhere wins out and becomes the orthodox belief. But there were competing thoughts. The birth narrative in Matthew is (was) used by some to suggest that Jesus became the "Son of God" at birth, or maybe conception. Others point to events during his life (and resurrection). Early Christians that pointed to Jesus becoming Christ, becoming the "Son of God" at some later points were called adoptionists believing that God adopted Jesus the human being as his son at some point and exalted him to a divine status. Passages suggesting this are sprinkled all over the place, so don't really need another, but...

The variant version of Luke 3:22 which some argue is the original (I'll avoid that debate but make comment later in this post) that was prevalent in at least some quarters of the first few centuries suggest that God "adopted" Jesus at his baptism. The view of the heretic Marcion who was accused of having an edited version of Luke that also omitted the birth narrative. Again, not going to debate it, but at least some number of scholars today believe that the evidence is strong that Marcion's "edit" was actually closer to the original version of Luke. (This is not the only major edit believed to have happened to Luke.) Acts 5:31 is (was?) used by some to support that becoming Christ or "Son of God" happened at the resurrection, or at the very least Jesus becomes "co-equal" (exalted) at the resurrection. The transfiguration is (was?) also pointed to by some as "the" moment.

To me all of that is irrelevant to my faith. If Jesus is slated to become Christ, the son of God next week rather than 2,000 years ago or 8 billion or infinite years ago doesn't really matter much. However, these kinds of tidbits from a historical perspective are just interesting to me. Worth discovering. Acts 5:31 doesn't so much support the "facts" of variant reading since it disagrees on the when (baptism vs resurrection), but instead simply points out that Luke was not necessarily consistent in his Christology. (You can see the same kind of thing in Paul's letters, though the best example (Phil 2:5-?) is likely Paul quoting another contemporary source. And elsewhere.)

Finally, I would like to say that variant Lukes with the "bestowed" 3:22, without a birth narrative, no sweating of blood, among other things probably best preserve the earliest Christian beliefs. I would like to say that, but Luke disagrees with Paul too much in Acts. When Paul says that Paul did such and such and Acts says he did something different (example Galatians 1:17-18 vs Acts 9:18-19*), should we think that Paul is a liar? Or simply that Acts is wrong? So, if Acts gets things wrong then why should Luke be any different? Such a shame in trying to build a faith around it, but it adds another interesting layer of mystery in tracing back to the origins. Makes it all so interesting!

*Well you can contort these (Galatians 1:17-18 vs Acts 9:18-19) into one narrative where Paul [relatively] immediately after his conversion meets the other apostles in Damascus and then Cephas and James again three years later in Jerusalem if you ignore that Paul's entire point in telling the backstory is that he didn't get the gospel he was sharing from the apostles nor discussed it with any of them until much later. Maybe Acts survives intact doing this, but the meaning of Galatians 1 crumbles.

First of all those are different translations, they aren't different versions. There were no changes made with the Bible. But also the current translation matches psalm 2:7

Psalm 2:7 KJV
[7] I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

According to the teachers that I have heard it's that after Christ died and rose from the dead and that is when God said this day have I begotten thee.

I would need to see these supposed contradictions that you say Paul has with Acts.

Paul after his conversion went on to Arabia and many believe it was to mount sinai. From there please believe that the Risen Christ gave him his doctrine of grace for the church. His Doctrine is different from the doctrine of the 12. The doctrine of the 12 was for Israel who were still under the law and about to enter the kingdom age. That is a completely different dispensation from what Paul taught to the grace age Church.

I'd say you have a long row to hoe to establish the bolded. Just throwing it out there as if it is established mainstream Christian belief is curious (and inaccurate).

I studied this for a very long time. I was raised in the traditional dispensational View. I believed that the dispensations were Old Testament and New Testament. I believed that the Old Testament was not for today in the New Testament was. But as I started the Bible under a great teacher I learned that that is not the place where we divide the scriptures. We divide the scriptures Paul's writings versus the rest of scripture. Paul's ratings alone were written to the church. And when you separate his writings from the rest of scripture it solves a multitude of doctrinal issues. There's a lot of passages that support my view.

I think it's pretty clear that Paul was deferential to Peter and the 12 but also that he wasn't afraid to take a vocal stand when he disagreed with them. If they thought they were at odds they would have worked that out. This makes me think it's the modern interpretation that's at odds with the doctrine, not the contemporary perspectives. I believe sacred tradition supports this view.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Was he exalted? Or was he just always was?
Yes!

Why can't it be both?

Sure, but for that to work Jesus had to be something lesser than God (the father) from the beginning to whenever he was exalted, because other wise he would need to be raised (exalted) to a status greater than that of God. If Jesus was always co-equal to God since the beginning, or simply just God as some simplify then how could there be a higher status to achieve? Throw the Gospel of John, or at least some of the most popular parts away and this isn't so much of a problem. But much of the third, fourth, and fifth centuries was about making John "win" at the expense of these alternative heresies.

The Gospel of John won the day, more so than pretty much anything else. While as a believer I have to think that this is as God intended, as a flawed human being I think I would have preferred otherwise. I can relate to, be more impressed by in human terms a Jesus that proves us mere humans can fully serve God's will and be rewarded to the extreme. I cannot relate that much to someone with a divine "cheat code" taking a few days (in relative terms to eternity) and roughing it as a mere human. The Gospel of John makes it harder to figure out what being "a little Christ" looks like in the every day world. Maybe it helps with the salvation piece, but I've always just had faith that if grace is really grace by definition then that will work out anyway. (Edit: And if it does not then it probably doesn't matter anyway.]

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I think it's pretty clear that Paul was deferential to Peter and the 12

I think it is pretty clear from what Paul himself wrote that Paul pretty much never deferred to anyone. Especially with his teachings, his gospel.

 

[Paddington]

I studied this for a very long time. I was raised in the traditional dispensational View. I believed that the dispensations were Old Testament and New Testament. I believed that the Old Testament was not for today in the New Testament was. But as I started the Bible under a great teacher I learned that that is not the place where we divide the scriptures. We divide the scriptures Paul's writings versus the rest of scripture. Paul's ratings alone were written to the church. And when you separate his writings from the rest of scripture it solves a multitude of doctrinal issues. There's a lot of passages that support my view.

This perspective seems to be pretty much lifted straight out of Hebrews. Is that fair? Somewhat accurate? Or demonstrating a lot of [admitted] ignorance of your "Mid Acts" beliefs?

In one of the closed threads I used Hebrews to suggest that I found it funny that Christians clung to the Ten Commandments when Hebrews explicitly states that all of this is "obsolete". But I also figured that a lot of Christians trivialize Hebrews, taking a Luther view that it had a valuable teaching or two but it departed too much from doctrine, doesn't even claim itself to be from Paul, and for these and other reasons should have never been in the canon. Surprisingly in that thread this didn't happen, and even a post embraced Hebrews. But I still think most Christians don't have much of a view at all of Hebrews, and when they do it is still kind of "meh".

Now based on your posts where you describe or hint more about your "Mid Acts" beliefs, I am wondering if you (both you, and those of your form of faith) have a more elevated view of Hebrews? Or am I just letting my mind get carried away linking a similarity or two and then just running away with it?

I believe that Hebrews is Scripture and written by Paul to the Hebrews who were on the fence believers in Christ, but also on the fence about observing the Law of Moses to Grace.

We do not base the Mid Acts view on Hebrews, although Paul did write it in my view.

Peter affirms to the Hebrews that Paul had written to them, although all other of his writings are written to the Gentiles. He also affirms Pauls writings as Scripture:

2 Peter 3:15-16 KJV
[15] And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; [16] as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

As I said before, Mid Acts believers believe that the entire Bible in scripture, but we believe that all of the writings except for Paul's writings were written to Israel not the church. We believe that God has different dispensations of dealing with men in different ways. Paul's writings except for Hebrews we're for the grace age church of today.

 

[Paddington]

Psalm 2:7 KJV

[7] I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.



Hebrews 5:5 KJV

[5] So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, To day have I begotten thee.



Acts 13:33 KJV
[33] God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Psalm 2:7 KJV

[7] I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.



Hebrews 5:5 KJV

[5] So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, To day have I begotten thee.



Acts 13:33 KJV
[33] God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Did you see the movie Arrival (2016)? I wonder if this would all make much more sense in the non-adoptionists sense if we didn't experience time linearly?

I believe that Hebrews is Scripture and written by Paul to the Hebrews who were on the fence believers in Christ, but also on the fence about observing the Law of Moses to Grace.

We do not base the Mid Acts view on Hebrews, although Paul did write it in my view.

Peter affirms to the Hebrews that Paul had written to them, although all other of his writings are written to the Gentiles. He also affirms Pauls writings as Scripture:

2 Peter 3:15-16 KJV
[15] And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; [16] as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

As I said before, Mid Acts believers believe that the entire Bible in scripture, but we believe that all of the writings except for Paul's writings were written to Israel not the church. We believe that God has different dispensations of dealing with men in different ways. Paul's writings except for Hebrews we're for the grace age church of today.

If Hebrews is instead a sermon written for persecuted gentile congregation that looks to the special status that Jews have when it comes to not being compelled to participate in the civic worship of the gods with an envy, with a temptation to convert to Judiasm, does it more fit in line with your other beliefs? That the less than perfect, obsolete old covenant isn't for the new church? And in fact a Christian (member of the grace church) following the old covenant can show a lack of faith and may cause the loss of salvation. (Whether Hebrews is Pauline or not is debatable, but this last particular concept fits Paul's gospel.)

I'm probably taking the similarities too far, but I'm not really asking if the beliefs are based on Hebrews, but if the above interpretation is more or less consistent with your view (even if you disagree that interpretation of Hebrews)? Trying to take baby steps here to understanding what seems theologically both strange and familiar at the same time.

 

[dkp993]

Did you see the movie Arrival (2016)? I wonder if this would all make much more sense in the non-adoptionists sense if we didn't experience time linearly?

In that vain, aliens not time, if definitive proof (truly undeniable proof) that aliens exist and are visiting earth, what effects do you think this has on organized religion and Christianity specifically?

 

[Paddington]

Psalm 2:7 KJV

[7] I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.



Hebrews 5:5 KJV

[5] So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, To day have I begotten thee.



Acts 13:33 KJV
[33] God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Did you see the movie Arrival (2016)? I wonder if this would all make much more sense in the non-adoptionists sense if we didn't experience time linearly?

I believe that Hebrews is Scripture and written by Paul to the Hebrews who were on the fence believers in Christ, but also on the fence about observing the Law of Moses to Grace.

We do not base the Mid Acts view on Hebrews, although Paul did write it in my view.

Peter affirms to the Hebrews that Paul had written to them, although all other of his writings are written to the Gentiles. He also affirms Pauls writings as Scripture:

2 Peter 3:15-16 KJV
[15] And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; [16] as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

As I said before, Mid Acts believers believe that the entire Bible in scripture, but we believe that all of the writings except for Paul's writings were written to Israel not the church. We believe that God has different dispensations of dealing with men in different ways. Paul's writings except for Hebrews we're for the grace age church of today.

If Hebrews is instead a sermon written for persecuted gentile congregation that looks to the special status that Jews have when it comes to not being compelled to participate in the civic worship of the gods with an envy, with a temptation to convert to Judiasm, does it more fit in line with your other beliefs? That the less than perfect, obsolete old covenant isn't for the new church? And in fact a Christian (member of the grace church) following the old covenant can show a lack of faith and may cause the loss of salvation. (Whether Hebrews is Pauline or not is debatable, but this last particular concept fits Paul's gospel.)

I'm probably taking the similarities too far, but I'm not really asking if the beliefs are based on Hebrews, but if the above interpretation is more or less consistent with your view (even if you disagree that interpretation of Hebrews)? Trying to take baby steps here to understanding what seems theologically both strange and familiar at the same time.

Hebrews was written to Jews, not Gentiles. The key is the title of the Book....Hebrews. These Jews had believed that Christ was their Messiah, they were Law Keeping Jews, but were on the fence about taking the leap of converting to Paul's Gospel of Grace. They were considering rejecting it all and Paul was explanating the consequences to them.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

The tennis friend of mine who took me to a Men's group at a Church during the pandemic, I'll be honest I did it so I could get out of the house
This guy lays into me on Saturday during tennis at 7:30am and we have 12 guys on 3 courts playing doubles
Tennis friend is not even on my court and some profanity laced tirade comes flying out of my mouth and I have heard him ask others to stop cussing and he finally did it to me
In front of everyone from a different court than the one I was playing doubles on...oh man you cannot imagine the emotions and feelings that were running thru my head.

I buried my mother when she was 46 and I was 21, that does not give me the right to say anything I want but I'll be damned if I'm going to be chastised about it
I try hard to not say JC and the GD around this guy out of respect for what he's done for me and he's done many things along the way, in general I think he's a good dude.
But I had to be restrained because those that were on my court know how I can fly off the handle when i take offense to what someone is saying or trying to do to me
I did not want to say something I would likely regret later but I was about to kick him out of rotation on Saturdays, that came out of my mouth

He said "sorry" and fist bumped me at the end of the tennis, I don't know what to do...i guess forgive and try again but he has become adamant about anyone that cusses around him and I want to know where it says you can't say S word, F Bombs and the like, where is that written in the bible? Where is he getting this like it's against his religion when folks cuss around him
He's pushed it the last several weeks, he's done it to others on previous weeks, he just hadn't done it to me.
Last week he threatened to leave and i convinced him to stay but it irked me then and it got worse yesterday

 

[dkp993]

The tennis friend of mine who took me to a Men's group at a Church during the pandemic, I'll be honest I did it so I could get out of the house
This guy lays into me on Saturday during tennis at 7:30am and we have 12 guys on 3 courts playing doubles
Tennis friend is not even on my court and some profanity laced tirade comes flying out of my mouth and I have heard him ask others to stop cussing and he finally did it to me
In front of everyone from a different court than the one I was playing doubles on...oh man you cannot imagine the emotions and feelings that were running thru my head.

I buried my mother when she was 46 and I was 21, that does not give me the right to say anything I want but I'll be damned if I'm going to be chastised about it
I try hard to not say JC and the GD around this guy out of respect for what he's done for me and he's done many things along the way, in general I think he's a good dude.
But I had to be restrained because those that were on my court know how I can fly off the handle when i take offense to what someone is saying or trying to do to me
I did not want to say something I would likely regret later but I was about to kick him out of rotation on Saturdays, that came out of my mouth

He said "sorry" and fist bumped me at the end of the tennis, I don't know what to do...i guess forgive and try again but he has become adamant about anyone that cusses around him and I want to know where it says you can't say S word, F Bombs and the like, where is that written in the bible? Where is he getting this like it's against his religion when folks cuss around him
He's pushed it the last several weeks, he's done it to others on previous weeks, he just hadn't done it to me.
Last week he threatened to leave and i convinced him to stay but it irked me then and it got worse yesterday

The golden rule applies here imo. Treat others as you would want to be treated. For me that means this guy would no longer be in my circle. I don’t tell others how to act, so don’t try and tell me. I’m a grown man. If I’m not happy with how someone I know acts, I just don’t hang with them. Him expecting you to abide by his rule’s simply doesn’t fly for me.

 

[Paddington]

The tennis friend of mine who took me to a Men's group at a Church during the pandemic, I'll be honest I did it so I could get out of the house
This guy lays into me on Saturday during tennis at 7:30am and we have 12 guys on 3 courts playing doubles
Tennis friend is not even on my court and some profanity laced tirade comes flying out of my mouth and I have heard him ask others to stop cussing and he finally did it to me
In front of everyone from a different court than the one I was playing doubles on...oh man you cannot imagine the emotions and feelings that were running thru my head.

I buried my mother when she was 46 and I was 21, that does not give me the right to say anything I want but I'll be damned if I'm going to be chastised about it
I try hard to not say JC and the GD around this guy out of respect for what he's done for me and he's done many things along the way, in general I think he's a good dude.
But I had to be restrained because those that were on my court know how I can fly off the handle when i take offense to what someone is saying or trying to do to me
I did not want to say something I would likely regret later but I was about to kick him out of rotation on Saturdays, that came out of my mouth

He said "sorry" and fist bumped me at the end of the tennis, I don't know what to do...i guess forgive and try again but he has become adamant about anyone that cusses around him and I want to know where it says you can't say S word, F Bombs and the like, where is that written in the bible? Where is he getting this like it's against his religion when folks cuss around him
He's pushed it the last several weeks, he's done it to others on previous weeks, he just hadn't done it to me.
Last week he threatened to leave and i convinced him to stay but it irked me then and it got worse yesterday

The golden rule applies here imo. Treat others as you would want to be treated. For me that means this guy would no longer be in my circle. I don’t tell others how to act, so don’t try and tell me. I’m a grown man. If I’m not happy with how someone I know acts, I just don’t hang with them. Him expecting you to abide by his rule’s simply doesn’t fly for me.

Sounds like my wife who gets offended by my behavior, even if no one else does...

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Did you see the movie Arrival (2016)? I wonder if this would all make much more sense in the non-adoptionists sense if we didn't experience time linearly?

In that vain, aliens not time, if definitive proof (truly undeniable proof) that aliens exist and are visiting earth, what effects do you think this has on organized religion and Christianity specifically?

I think that those with a 6000 year earth being the center of the universe will just adjust a bit and move on. I think those with relatively more relaxed beliefs to begin with don't really need to adjust at all. God doing his work through strange aliens is not really much different than God working through Caesar, is it? It is all just part of the devine plan.

For me, I doubt the undescribable pull towards a belief in God will change at all. Already have more than enough logical arguments to completely dismiss God, one more isn't going to matter.

 

[dkp993]

I think that those with a 6000 year earth being the center of the universe will just adjust a bit and move on

Thanks for your reply. Most makes sense to me.

The quoted part though is fascinating to me. With such a dogmatic and ridged mindset what “adjustments” do you think this group makes to square it with their current beliefs. @Paddington feel free to jump into here as well if you’re so inclined. Thanks.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I think that those with a 6000 year earth being the center of the universe will just adjust a bit and move on

Thanks for your reply. Most makes sense to me.

The quoted part though is fascinating to me. With such a dogmatic and ridged mindset what “adjustments” do you think this group makes to square it with their current beliefs. @Paddington feel free to jump into here as well if you’re so inclined. Thanks.

The exact nature of the adjustment is difficult as I have a difficult time with the ideas once you get into specifics. I find the arguments tend to be, to me at least dishonest. Way more "picking and choosing" to make it mesh then I ever do starting from a point that it doesn't mesh, that there are unique, sometime contradictory views being expressed in the bible. Starting with Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

But is generallities rather than specifics, I'd think the adjustments are similar to those that are required to get past space exploration and the firmament layer. (Pretend that the beliefs that now obviously fail never existed to begin with. Non believers just misunderstood.)

 

[dgreen]

Why would aliens present a problem to Biblical literalists?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Why would aliens present a problem to Biblical literalists?

It would seem to challenge the earth focused creation story of Genesis along with humans being God's special creation in the center of it all. I'd guess you'd explain that this is still true without much difficulty as long as the evidence doesn't show the aliens are that much more advanced whether in technology or benevolence. I'd think that whether or not God's plan for redemption, for salvation applied to the aliens could easily be punted with the Bible being silent on aliens shouldn't be interpreted as the Bible claiming that aliens don't exist.

The most difficult challenges would seem to be the "science" of the Bible and reconciling the timeline. But even here, we have evidence of human presence that is more than 6000 years into the past and the beliefs continue on so not that much of a challenge.

So as I suggested, small adjustments here and there and then moving on.