Coolhand

Thanks Pete, I just shared that with my Bible study group. We are current going through Matthew and that exact question actually came up, "How can the Jews NOT see that Jesus is the subject of Isaiah 53?" I simply suggested reading it in context, but what do I know. I like how he walks through it. And I also like how he addresses the multitude of "prophesies" that Jesus allegedly fulfills that are at best allusions.

Oh I see what you are saying, yeah it does. The Hebrew uses something like "authority" for "rule," as does the LXX.

Hey brother, So, "yom." This is a good example of how studying the original languages was of no help at all. Sometimes the original is very helpful and quite a blessing, sometimes it doesn't help, and sometimes it causes more questions than it does answers. In this case I think the context is more helpful than the word study. "Morning and evening was the -----day." From the context it looks to me like it means day as in morning an evening, like a regular 24 hour day. Regarding other places in Genesis it looks to me like they have a similar range of meaning for "yom" that we do for day.

It looks to me like 14 could; of course depending on what we meant by astrology. NIV is pretty close to the Tanakh and the LXX: "And God said, 'Let there be lights in the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years." It looks to me like the lights or "sources of light" were put there with purpose, specifically marking seasons and times. To me this then begs the question of authorship and original audience and what that would have meant to them.

Were starting a "through the Bible" study in our ministry, starting at the beginning. I've been reading through this exegetical commentary: http://www.thestonescryout.com/creation/genesis_1-2_exegetical_commentary?fbclid=IwAR3b01OoB_gd6nkvo_1ijM-ZA1IUfKzD-2tq3bdaqVAfOA3a53-fEcegsl4 The translators of the NIV use center justified to show poetry, and left justified to show prose, but Gen 1 is neither. There is some confusion in regard to what Gen 1 is. Some say its a song, or a poem, or a polemic of Moses against the Egyptian's Gods. I'm firmly in the "other" camp and think it is literature. I think writer is trying to get the point across that God is the creator and the source, and that the the sabbath day is blessed. I'm talking about Genesis 1:1 through 2:3. Anybody got any good exegetical commentaries to share? I try to stay away from the devotional commentaries.

Was your title something like "Conqueror of Heaven neener neener"?

Hey there.

I think it is interesting how the Bible is handled, studied, and understood. We are talking about about a book that claims to be "God breathed" (theopenustos) and yet was written by primitive men in primitive societies with a fraction of the understanding of science and physics is exists currently. Very few, if any, of these biblical writers would have been counted as scholars by any kind postmodern standards, except maybe Paul, possibly Luke. Another thing is that we don't know exactly what they were looking at when they were writing, and in fact a lot of the questions that come up in the Bible studies that I attend are good questions but fall into the "unknowable" category. And I agree with you brother, that "I don't know" is a better answer than a lot of the religious filibustering I've heard to try to prove "inerrancy", which if I understand it correctly only applies to "original autographs" which conveniently enough are unavailable; what kind of chicanery is that? Not only is this antiquated collection of books written void of actual scientific facts in a lot of cases, but it is also written from the perspective of one who does not seem understand what he is seeing and writing about. And you would think that these writers would attempt to portray themselves and their nation in a much better light, and at least attempt to provide justification for their actions instead of just owning their failures. The presumptions and presuppositions that we carry with us when we read this are going to affect how we process it. To me the power, authority, inerrancy, and infallability is in its honest and accurate illustrations of the range of human experience and emotion, and God and his attributes. If we try to understand the presumption and presuppositions of the biblical writers we gain context, instead we look at the angry, wrathful, violent say we want no part of it. Also, if a person really reads it they find things upside down and backwards at times like, I thought this was the good one and that was the bad one. People handle the Bible and try assign dates to the narratives and decide when described events occurred and if they occurred when can't even tell for sure what genre of literature they are reading. The Bible is not an easy book at all. Many times it gives you a story and you have to figure out why it is there. Sometimes you get the answers to questions but not the question. This is a book that you can't just read a few times and you got it, its a lifetime of mediation on spiritual, moral, emotional and human conditions. Regardless, "never happened, no Moses, no Ten Plagues", etc is not something that I believe is "knowable," or that any of us can make any claims for certain one way or the other.

Thanks man on the welcome back. I'm not trying to convince you of anything or change your beliefs, I know where you stand and respect that. I am curious at how you can so confidently dismiss the "exodus" story with so little stand on for it or against it. Did you just decide it wasn't true and that this where your confidence comes from?

I would say that the Bible is a book that is theological literature that is based on history. Sometimes more theological, sometimes more literary. Can I prove what happen that happened before I existed? No. I would say that I choose to believe or disbelieve things that I cannot prove. But then again, I've done things and had experiences that I cannot prove happened. So maybe that is not the "check mate" it is supposed to be. Do you think you are presupposing that if something is true that there has to be proof? Is it possible for something to be true that cannot be proved? Is it possible to prove that something happened that actually didn't happen? Your statements are very concrete, " never happened, no Moses, no Ten Plagues", etc. How do you say that with such confidence? It seems to me that "bold assertion" is the one that goes against the Scriptures and the centuries of tradition based on those events.

Hey all, It looks like some new people here or possibly people have just changed there names. I haven' been around here much in the last couple years but I'm still around. In case you are curious, I'm still doing the motorcycle chaplain ministry, still in the San Diego area, still an officer in Warriors of the Cross motorcycle club, I still to HVAC and refrigeration work, and Im still trying to finish my masters degree. We have BBQ's in the San Diego area to try to promote unity among motorcycle clubs. These started off to allow a place for all the Christian bikers (club and independent) to be able to fellowship without the baggage and structure of a church type organization. We were calling it "Christian Unity" but changed it to just "Unity" because it naturally expanded and we didn't want to limit it but just wanted a good vibe of fellowship. Since 2013 we have been having church services in Harley dealers. We got it started, we were approached by a Harley dealer we did not push our way in which I thought was cool. Currently in San Diego there are two different dealers doing this, one of the second Sunday and one on the fourth Sunday. Some of the guys would like to do it every Sunday, but most of us would rather be riding instead of in a building. You can have that same sweet spirit of fellowship. Some of you guys were here when I started in May 2002. I had been involved in church, mostly Assemblies of God, from the time I was really young, and I started riding motorcycles about the same time. My relationship with God through Jesus Christ has always been important to me though it has changed and morphed over the years. I learned about the ULC from other bikers. Turns out back in the day, bikers would get ordained by the ULC so when their brother were incarcerated, they could get in to visit because visits from clergy were protected. So, 2002 I was ordained by the ULC, then 2004 I resigned that and was ordained by the UCFM because I wanted something more exclusively Christian, but still participated in this forum. Then 2010 I resigned the UCFM and was Licensed by the Assemblies of God, 2012 Ordained by the Assemblies of God. In 2015 I resigned the Assemblies of God because it wasn't the fit I was looking for. Sometime around then I had my ULC credential reinstated. Then last year in our motorcycle club we started our own ministry credentialing program for our members. I do the hermeneutics portion of that training. Regarding mechanical work, I have left the management world. I was a HVAC Manager when I first joined here. 2003 I became a Service Manager. 2013 I became a General Manager. Then after 22 years at that company I left to be Service Manager at a smaller company that worked on bigger equipment. 2018 I left that company, now I am a union Senior HVACR tech for the City of San Diego. All of these resignations (ministry and work) were not forced but were decisions I made because I just wasn't feeling it anymore, I'm on good terms with all of them. In 2006 I earned a certificate in biblical counselling, in 2008 I earned my BA in biblical ministry. 2009 I started working on a masters degree. I started off the MA in Missiology program, then changed to the Master of Divinity program, then changed to the MA in Leadership Studies program, and finally in February I changed again to MA in Biblical Studies New Testament Concentration. Lots of changing, losing time, getting extensions, re-enrolling, etc. I am acutely aware that I just need to finish. I am currently debating where to write a capstone paper or a thesis. I like the capstone idea because its a ministry strategy paper for implementing what I have learned in graduate school, and also measuring the effectiveness. That is where I am leaning right now because of the practicality of it. Although I do want to write a thesis dealing with hermeneutics of the book of Revelation. If I do the thesis then I will have classwork that I have done that wont count towards my degree. Not sure what (if anything academically) is next. Currently I'm an MA candidate in Biblical Studies (New Testament), and I'm in a class called "The Bible as Literature: Theory and Methodology". The Biblical Studies program seems more who I am. It seems I always have a Bible open in front of me, referring to exegetical commentaries, and checking against interlinear Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The classes on ministry and leadership I have had I was always suspect of how the "proof text" they were using was handled, and didn't always agree with the conclusion. Some people approach the Bible as if it were an outline with attached proof texts; I would argue that it definitely is NOT that. If I ever finish my masters and decide to go on to a doctorate, it will probably be a Dth. I say that because the Dmin is loaded with ministry coursework and presupposition, the Phd requires a couple years of theological language study on top of the required biblical language study. The Dth is a pure research degree based on more of a European model and more focused with out all the extra stuff. I plan on being around here more. As I have said before, some of the best ministry training I have had was participating in these forums here. I learned more here about how to communicate, and respectfully debate than anywhere else. I know I have annoyed people and a lot of people were very patient with me, and others not so much..lol. I do encourage others that I minister with to join and participate in discussions with people to do not see things the same way they do and do not agree with them. A lot of people like to surround themselves with people that agree with them. I do not think that is a biblical principle. I think having a core group of like minded people is good, but cloistering and shadow boxing with imaginary opponents does not appeal to me. I like people who can show me the weakness of my logic and expose my subjectivity, biases, and presuppositions. I guess that catches you up with me these days.

I've always thought it was interesting how people talk about all of the alleged prophesies in the Old Testament that Jesus has allegedly fulfilled. What prophesies do you find to be the most compelling annieSTTER?

Psalm 133 A song of ascents. Of David. 1 How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity! 2 It is like precious oil poured on the head, running down on the beard, running down on Aaron’s beard, down on the collar of his robe. 3 It is as if the dew of Hermon were falling on Mount Zion. For there the Lord bestows his blessing, even life forevermore.(NIV) Looking at "good" and "pleasant" here, thinking about words that describe the opposites of these words and the contrast. Odd, because just because something is good does not always mean its pleasant, and just because something is pleasant does not mean its good. So I ponder the meaning of these words then in line with my thoughts about what it is like to dwell in unity. Thinking about dwelling in unity. Im thinking being united in thought, action, and attitude. Being united in purpose, goals, and how we operate. So I do not have any Utopian ideas of everyone being in total agreement all the time. Not everyone wants to play by the rules they create for others. Not everyone has the same fire and desire and we get offended, well, i get annoyed at people who make rules and expect me to follow then while they themselves disregard their own rules. How are are you supposed to dwell unity with brothers like that? For one, you cant focus on it, those who seek unity overlook things. Knowing how good and pleasant it is to dwell in unity, having tasted it: that brother knows how precious it is desires it. He knows that God is God and in that comes comfort. I think about dwelling in unity as in living in unity. Not just holding it together for a meeting or a weekend ride, but dwelling in unity as a lifestyle. Then the example of Aaron anointing than ran from his head down into his beard and on his garments. When I read that I feel a joy way down inside, because the goodness and pleasantness of dwelling with brothers in unity is like an anointing from God, and a blessedness that cannot be contained, but overflows and seeps into other areas. Having these times with brothers, with our Bibles out, talking about what we are reading,...that blessing and sweet spirit just seems to expand. That is one reason why our ministry always meets in public places. It spills over. And that sweet spirit that abides over the fellowship is sensed by those around. It is good and pleasant. Then finally, the thought of dew, watering a thirsty land. How the plants are nourished by the dew. I think also of the contrasting archetype of a dry desert without water, or having a thirst that is unquenchable and no water around. Of drying and dying vegetation. I think about how dwelling in disunity and discord provides these desert wilderness like feelings and experience, and how hopeless that can be. I think about how dwelling in unity waters the soul and how it encourages and strengthens. God gave the command for life. Life can be good and pleasant. We can dwell in unity with our brothers and sisters. I suppose it is a choice.

That respect is mutual my friend. I have enjoyed your friendship and conversation over the 15 something years that I have known you, and I appreciate the patience and kindness you have had with me over the years. I noticed that many of the writers in the article mentioned Isaiah 53. The New Testament writers have always seemed to interpret that to be talking about Jesus, where the people that the text was written to interpret it otherwise. Luke also interprets Is 53 to be talking about Jesus, but in my opinion focusing only on as being rejected and then killed. There was a time in my Christian walk that I had what I thought was "the answers" to many questions that I now am not so sure about. As you were saying about education and its effect of opening new avenues of thought I totally agree with. It seems the more a person "knows", if they are completely honest, they become aware of how much they do not know. There are sermons that I have preached in a cavalier manner that I look back on and now pray that people will forget most if not all of what I had said. I recently received a "last chance" to renew a subscription to a theological resource, and the carrot dangle was the different modules that they now offer: Baptist theology, Reformed theology, Pentecostal theology, etc. These different flavors of theological thought, in my opinion, are not advancing the honest study of theology but are rather fueling apologetic type debate and enforcing the barriers to the discovery of the truth, and barriers to true brotherly fellowship. Of course to this company it is about making money by providing an alleged service or resource. There are things that are written in the Bible that give me great comfort and there are things written in the Bible, I agree with you about and wonder how a loving God could have "inspired" some of the things written to be written. Or, if God had anything to do with inspiring some of it but is given the credit for it, and you know as when as I do, when someone claims that God told them this or that, the conversation is over. Then it turns into a "bow in submission to God" thing. Which then presents another problem, which is: "Is God telling all these different people different things?" Somehow I doubt it. I would argue that keeping it simple is anything but simple.

Hey Pete. As far as I can see in Luke, his point for recording the death of Jesus was to show that Jesus had been a prophet rejected by the people. Luke has a theme of showing fulfillment of what he read in the Septuagint, to show that Jesus fulfilled the points that he had selected from that text as far Jesus being the anointed prophet and the restoration of prophetic activity among the Jews. From what I understand by reading Luke and what others say about the writing that they credit to Luke, being "filled with the spirit" was a Septuagint phrase that Luke used often, but not in a filled with the spirit as in how John or Paul would use it; like sanctification or salvation. Luke used it more in the sense of a vocational empowering: "so and so was filled with the spirit and then__________." Restored prophetic activity, being filled with the spirit; these seem to be the emphasis of Luke to show fulfillment of earlier prophets to point to Jesus at the anointed and soon to be rejected prophet. Atonement is not really mentioned. I would agree that Luke is missing the clear element of atonement, which is going to cause some people to try to find it indirectly so that they can claim the Luke does hold to that theology, for some reason. In regard to church, I currently do not belong to one, only the christian motorcycle club and this one here (ULC). In regard to school, I could assert or argue anything I want as long as I demonstrate a mastery of the required reading for the course; I only have to meet and be able to explain the course objectives, I don't necessarily have to agree with the conclusions. The lack of atonement in Luke, honestly, I never really noticed it until you brought that up. I guess I had always assumed it was in there. In regard to gospels, John was the one I had used the most, then Mark, then Matthew, then Luke. I like Luke though, because it does have a different point of view. I am looking through this course material and it is unlikely that atonement will even come up, the main sections are: I The hermeneutics of historical narrative; II The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of Luke: Jesus as the Anointed Prophet; III The Holy Spirit in Acts: The Disciples as Spirit Baptized Prophets; IV The Holy Spirit in Acts: The Acts of the community of prophets. The main focus is on the prophetic element. If I come across any atonement discussions or comments in the course material, I will share them with you. By the way, I spent some time watching the Yale University lectures that you posted yesterday. That is some really good material. Thanks for sharing that.

Right on Jonathan, thank you.

Cool, thanks Pete.

I have re-enrolled in the course THE EXPOSITION OF PNEUMATOLOGY IN LUCAN LITERATURE at Global University https://www.globaluniversity.edu/ . Global is a theological distance education school in the Pentecostal tradition and it has several schools: 1) The discipleship and evangelism school; 2) The coursework for credentialing with the Assemblies of God called Berean School of the Bible ; 3) The undergrad school of theology; and 4) The graduate school of theology. The graduate school of theology has Master of Arts programs in biblical studies, Master of Arts programs in ministerial studies, a Master of Divinity program, and a Doctor of Ministry program. It is an accredited school but obviously not a Harvard or a Princeton. I have decided to resume work in the graduate school of theology on the Master of Arts in ministerial studies: Leadership Concentration program. I have completed all of the core courses except this one, and I have taken two electives: Hebrew 1 and Hebrew 2, which I completed at Reformed Theological Seminary virtual campus and have transferred into this program. I do not plan on doing the thesis track, but rather doing the coursework and doing a capstone paper. I have quit this program twice because I really don't like the distance education model, but only have 5 classes until I graduate so it made sense to tough it out and just finish it. I plan on putting some thoughts here for discussion as I go through. If you know of a good book that deals with Luke's quotations and allusions of the Old Testament please share. This class deals a lot with Luke's usage of Old Testament and intertestamental writings, but the coursework limits the discussion to the differences between Evangelical and Pentecostal scholars/writers. One of the big topics that is dealt with in first unit is the issue of historical precedent from narrative portions quoted by NT writers of the OT, and NT narratives as normative patterns for today's believers/Christians. This always seems to be subjective. My angle currently is to discover how the writer of Luke uses historical precedent and then compare that to the course reading material. More to come.......

........and the bubble bursting......

Here's a little folly to lighten the mood.....lol.... courtesy of my conservative club brothers who thought I would find this compelling ......ay yi yi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtquNNEO7Fw

I'm getting off to a slow start in regard to my Revelations study. I have been listening to it audio bible style and also the Gospel of John. I'm curious about the author of Revelations. The author claims to be John, and it seems that there could be a couple of people that "john" could refer to. It seems to be a common thought that John is the apostle John. This is why I have taken to reading the Gospel John and Revelation to the similarities. There does seem to be a common theme of good and evil, and the thought that God and Jesus want to take residence with believers. I'm not saying that John the apostle is without a doubt the author, but that he could be. I have been wondering about what is the appropriate hermeneutic approach to use with Revelation, and the bible in general. One might think with the number of classes I have taken in Bible College and seminary that I would have a good answer for that. I bring this up because of the authorship question. If it is the apostle John, then it would seem that the date would be mid-late to late first century. I can’t recall for certain, but I think Revelation was quoted by other writers as early as 125 AD. Regarding the hermeneutic question, it seems the approach used by theologians and scholars is not he hermeneutic that was used by example of the biblical authors. Trained theologians seem to want to study the history, grammar, syntax, etc., try to determine authorial intent, and the original audience. By looking at how the New Testament writers handle the Old Testament, I have made the following conclusions: 1) The linguistics, grammar, and syntax don’t seem to be a thought or even discussed. The New Testament writers seem to refer to ancient translations as comfortably as the Hebrew text. The translation whether it is good or poor doesn’t seem to be an issue. 2) The New Testament writers don’t seem to be concerned with taking the parts of the Old Testament that they are quoting in any kind of context. They seem to make allusions out of narrative, and generally interpret things in a Christological sense even though it wouldn’t appear as if that was the Old Testament writer’s perspective. Almost like the New Testament writers high-jacked the Hebrew Scriptures to serve as illustrations for Christian topics. 3) Timothy says about the Bible ( probably referring to the Old Testament- I’m not sure what he would have had for New Testament scriptures, and what he would have thought would have been New Testament scripture) that it is profitable for correction, teaching, rebuke, and instruction in righteousness. He believed it was inspired or “God breathed”. To me that seems different than conservative viewpoint of infallible or inerrant. I don’t doubt the reliability of the Bible, but I don’t think the reliability of it can be measured without have all of the background, actual authorial intent, and context. Some of the books in the Bible they are not sure who wrote them, or when they were written, or what the point of them being written was. It is hard to use something with that much question surrounding for anything but devotional value, assuming that can be found in it. Those things aside, I will say God speaks to me through the Bible, and he illuminates things to me that may not be in context with what the poetry or prose I and reading is saying; so I do believe in some kind of inspiration even though I know I don’t (can’t) interpret everything I read in there correctly. My original intent was use the 4th Revised Edition Greek text to study the book, and I may get back to that, but I have abandoned that for the moment, mainly because of the numerous distractions that presents to someone like me. At one time I thought the study of Scripture would be best if done in the Hebrew for the Old Testament, and Greek for the New Testament. Then I got turned on to the Pe**ta (pesheeta in case the bad word filter blanks it out) which I was told was supposed to be the complete Aramaic New Testament which was about 100 years earlier than the oldest complete Greek text. That turned out to be a 4th century or later Syriac translation of the Greek. Syriac is like Aramaic but it is not what I thought it was. The Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament texts are not just one text that they found somewhere that clear up any and every doubt that person like me can have. Rather, they are an aggregate translation/version in the original language that has been corrected and clarified by other translations/and versions both more and less recent, using other translations/version that are easier to understand to correct and understand some of the more confusing Hebrew and Greek parts. I am now trying to avoid the endless rabbit trails of following variant readings and the significance of each in favor of using a couple of English translations (NIV, NRSV, ESV) which use the most accurate and reliable manuscripts and versions, and the peer review of 100 scholars, 75 scholars, and 100 scholars respectively. Having spent time recently in the Gospel of John and Revelation I feel I have a more simple approach and thoughts about Christianity, a return to the simplicity of the faith so to speak. I’ve gone through a lot of changes in 2015, stuff became really upside down for a while, and then I wound up discarding most of what I thought was important and worthwhile for the last 10-15 years. Spending time in the book of John has helped reaffirm the power of a simple faith in Jesus Christ, and the power of my own personal testimony, of what God has done in my life. In regard to the Christian faith, I would say that John is probably the most important book and that John 3:16 is the most important verse; just my opinion, but there seems to be such power in them.

One reason is personal interest. Another is the challenge because of the layers of symbolism. Also the familiarity of other biblical books (and possibly non biblical) required to make sense of the content of the book. I've been told Revelation is like a crown jewel of Scripture that presupposes a mastery of all the other biblical work to really understand, however, I have heard and read opinions about what the book is supposed to be saying and have never been that impressed or convinced that anyone really knows. It claims to be an unveiling or a revealing of Jesus Christ and his ultimate victory. That would make sense as a Bible book. The author seems to be a mystery, who or what the beasts and creatures in the book seem to be a mystery, when it was written also seems to be a mystery, and how to interpret the symbols also seems to be a mystery. I personally have wondered why the book was even in the biblical canon. For centuries people have sought to find fulfillment of these symbols, beasts, creatures, and events within their own generation. As long as I can remember people in the churches that I was associated with in the past have used this book in a futuristic sense to prove the end is coming and is right around the corner and you better get ready. I have read though it many times but never put any effort into study of it, and there is some Christian theology in there, but it is not explained, it is rather presumed that the reader gets it, I kinda like that. Much of the theology discussed in the Bible studies and sermons I have heard seems to get stuck on the smaller parts that make up the whole, and seems deductive where as the theology in Revelation is more big picture and more inductive; it doesn't really explain itself but gives the results (Chapters 2-4, the letters to the churches). The best answer to "why" is probably personal interest.

I have taken interest in the Book of Revelation these days. I have never really been interested it that much other than reading through it but not really studying it seriously. I have decide to devote some time and serious study to it. I have not really gotten started yet. I have been brushing up on my biblical Greek and some of the fundamental of the language. I intent on leaning heavily on the Greek and the Greek Old Testament for references to the Old Testament. It appears that the allusions to the Old Testament are sometimes from the Hebrew and sometimes from the Greek. I haven't quite made up my mind in regard to how I feel about the book, other than I think it is interesting. I have been told/taught all my life that it was describing future events, but I'm not sure that I buy into the futuristic interpretation as a legitimate approach. They say there are four ways to approach the book: preterist, allegorical, ideological, and futurist; I kind of lean towards the preterist view currently, but am still undecided. I have bought some exegetical commentaries on Revelation to assist. I have several of the regular type commentaries and though they seem to find some devotional value to the text, I am more interested in a high level of study. I was able to find four exegetical commentaries, so we'll see what they have to say. I would be interested in hearing any opinions that people currently have about Revelation as well as any discoveries made from study of Revelations.

I'm not necessarily trying to "re-invent the wheel" here but there is a definition of a chair, and something else called the internet, with a semi accurate other thing called wikipedia that has a definition of a chair.......just sayin.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chair

Beside the whole using these to argue for the existence of God thing, I think they make perfect sense. In to color, I don't think that is a good application, being color blind for one, it is an irrelevant point to me, and pretty subjective to anyone else. Im thinking more along the links of a chair...........a chair cannot be a chair and not be a chair at the same time, a chair is either a chair or not a chair, and a chair is infact........a chair.