Got questions regarding what the Bible teaches?

[smokydot]

I believe the word "God" is often used as a collective noun, like "team," "partnership," "jury" and "committee." The individuals who make up each of these entities are unique. They are physically distinct from one another. My husband and I are a "couple." Notice the use of the singular indefinite pronoun "a." Since it is singular, the word which follows (i.e. "couple") is singular. But since it is a collective noun, we know that it has to be referring to more than one individual. If either my husband or I were not a part of this union, we could not be spoken of as a "couple." The "couple" would simply cease to exist. As united as we may be in many ways, when he is out on the golf course and I am at home feeling sorry for myself because I am a golf widow, we are definitely two physically distinct beings. In this way, we can be divided but still be a couple.

The word "God" is also used as a title. It can be applied to all three of the members of the Godhead, who are "one God," but it can also be applied to each one individually. Normally, I use the word "God" to refer to God the Father, even though I believe the Son to be every bit as divine as I believe the Father to be. When I say I worship "God," I worship God as one "Godhead," because they are so perfectly united in will, purpose, mind and heart, that I could not conceivably worship one without worshipping the others.

To me, the more problematic word is "substance." It just sets off all kinds of red flags in my mind. What is a "substance." When Jesus walked the earth, he definitely had a physical form (which I believe He still has), the substance of which was flesh, bone, etc. You believe, I'm quite certain, that His Father has no form, that His substance is incorporeal and invisible. How then can it be said that they are part of the same substance?

In the terms of form and substance:

Jesus' body was his form.
His substance, or essence, was both human and divine.
God the Father has no form.
His substance, or essence, is divine.

You would have to famaliarize yourself with the terms used in the heretical arguments of the time to understand the necessity of formulaic creeds.

And what's wrong with the way the Bible explains their relationship with each other? Why are the creeds needed if they do not merely re-state what the Bible says?

There were no printing presses when the creeds were formulated. Believers did not have copies of the Bible to consult. And because centuries ago, the creeds cleared away the heresies regarding the nature of Jesus, those heretical arguments are no longer a part of western culture. The creeds did their job.

 

[Katzpur]

In the terms of form and substance:

Jesus' body was his form.
His substance, or essence, was both human and divine.
God the Father has no form.
His substance, or essence, is divine.

Well, if by "substance" you mean "divine attributes," then I don't have a problem with the term. I believe Jesus has all of the same divine attributes His Father has.

You would have to famaliarize yourself with the terms used in the heretical arguments of the time to understand the necessity of formulaic creeds.

The creeds were necessary to unite the Roman Empire. The Council that formulated the Nicene Creed wasn't even called by or presided over by the Pope. I have studied that period of time quite a bit, actually. Had there still been a living prophet on earth in 325 A.D., the Nicene Creed would have been entirely unnecessary.

There were no printing presses when the creeds were formulated. Believers did not have copies of the Bible to consult. And because centuries ago, the creeds cleared away the heresies regarding the nature of Jesus, those heretical arguments are no longer a part of western culture. The creeds did their job.

And then some.

 

[Katzpur]

It's not a Biblical word, it's a philosophical word.

Then why is it so necessary that I use it to describe God? Why can't I just believe what the Bible says about Him?

 

[smokydot]

Then why is it so necessary that I use it to describe God? Why can't I just believe what the Bible says about Him?

I vote for that.

Look into the heresies of the time.
For example, some heresies maintained three Gods--Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
"Indivisible" disallowed that concept.
Some heresies maintained Jesus was the son of God, but he was not God.
"Substance," as in Jesus is the same substance as God, disallowed that concept.
Etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We know from the Old Testament that presenting water to wash one's feet was a gesture of hospitality (Ge 18:4, 19:2, 43:24, Jdg 19:20-21) and is linked to hospitality in Lk 7:44 and 1 Tim 5:10.

However, the passage in Jn 13:1-17 indicates it was a sign to show four things:
1) his love for them--vv.1-2,
2) his condescension--vv.3-5,
3) spiritual washing--vv.6-11,
4) an example--vv.12-17.

Number four is the biggie there: if Jesus gave it as an example, why don't you follow it?

In the Anglican church The priest washes the feet of parishioners during mass on Maundy Thursday.
This celebrates Christ washing the feet of the Disciples before the last supper.
I believe it is done by Catholics and Methodists as well, but not necessarily the same day as us.

It is far from being a lost Tradition.... It is also done by the Queen during her Maundy Ceremony of handing out purses of silver to pensioners.

While it's given a bit of a nod once a year, it still receives disproportionately less emphasis than other practices that are supposedly based on what Jesus taught.

It's the Catholic position (and the position of the Orthodox denominations and some Anglicans as well, AFAIK) that all the sacraments were instituted by Christ. Look through the Gospels, and foot-washing is the only thing where Jesus says anything like "do this for each other", "I'm setting an example for all of you to follow" and even "if you do not do this, you have no part of me". The reader's practically beaten over the head with the idea that foot-washing is necessary, and it's to be repeated.

I don't think any of the sacraments have as clear a Biblical foundation as foot-washing does... Confirmation, Holy Orders or Confession certainly don't; their Biblical basis is IMO sketchy at best.

In foot-washing, we have something where Jesus explicitly says "I want you to do this", "do this for each other" and "this is an example for you to follow", but it's either practiced once a year or forgotten entirely. Other actions that are only referred to in offhand, vague ways, and they're elevated to the status of "sacrament".

It's always seemed disproportionate to me... especially in the Sola Scriptura Protestant denominations. If I sat down and tried to figure out exactly what Jesus cared about and what he wanted me to do using only the Bible, I don't see how I could ever come to the conclusion that baptism was more important than ritual foot-washing.

 

[smokydot]

Mine isn't a theological issue. What is your favorite passage in the Bible? One for the New Testament, and one for the Old?

From the OT, it is Jer 9:23-24:
". . .Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom, or the strong man boast of his strength, or the rich man boast of his riches,
but let him who boasts boast about this:
that he understands and knows me. . ."

From the NT, it is Rom 8:15-16:
". . .you have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children."

What are your favorite verses from both?

 

[smokydot]

Number four is the biggie there: if Jesus gave it as an example, why don't you follow it?

You raise an excellent point.
But Jesus clearly indicated it was more than just about washing feet, "You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand. . .unless I wash you, you have no part with me."

[The following part of my response also applies to the quote below.]
What they did not realize was that this external washing was a picture of cleansing from sin by faith in the blood of Jesus (Rom 3:25).
Then Jesus said, "A person who has had a bath (cleansed from sin by faith in the blood of Jesus) needs only to wash his feet (confess his daily sin);
his whole body is clean (his sinfulness has already been forgiven with faith in the blood of Jesus). And you are clean (washed in the blood of the Lamb), though not every one of you."

So there are two things going on in Jesus' washing the apostles' feet:
1) a picture of cleansing from sin by faith in the blood of Jesus (Rom 3:25), and
2) an example of condescension to one another.

However, regarding the actual practice of washing feet, I've always viewed it as a NT commanded principle rather a commanded practice; i.e., the principle of condescension to one another,
as expressed in 1 Pe 5:5 or Eph 5:21.
But I will not argue against it being a NT commanded practice.

For there are other commanded principles, requiring commanded practices, in both the NT and the OT, which are not commonly practiced today.
Biblical principles do not change, but the practices sometimes do.
1) principle of women's submission to the authority of the husband, requiring practice of long hair and head veils when praying or prophesying in the assembly (1 Cor 11:3-16);
2) prinicple of modesty, requiring practice of no braided hair, no gold, no pearls and no expensive clothing (1 Tim 2:9);
3) principle of prayer (Col 4:2), requiring the practice by men of lifted hands (1 Tim 2:8), uncovered heads, and short hair (1 Cor 11:4,7,14);
4) principle of God-created differences between the sexes not being disregarded, or appearing to change places, requiring the practice that women not wear men's clothing and men not wear women's clothing (Deut 22:5).

Christian churches are not perfect.
So I try to major on the majors of obedience (belief in Jesus of Nazareth, godliness, prayer, repentence, confessing sin, love of the brethren) and not get too caught up in the minors, which can lead to legalism.

While it's given a bit of a nod once a year, it still receives disproportionately less emphasis than other practices that are supposedly based on what Jesus taught.

It's the Catholic position (and the position of the Orthodox denominations and some Anglicans as well, AFAIK) that all the sacraments were instituted by Christ. Look through the Gospels, and foot-washing is the only thing where Jesus says anything like "do this for each other", "I'm setting an example for all of you to follow" and even "if you do not do this, you have no part of me". The reader's practically beaten over the head with the idea that foot-washing is necessary, and it's to be repeated.

Actually, it is "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me."
Review my response above, where I have indicated that it applies to your quote here.
There are two things going on in Jesus' washing the apostles feet.

I don't think any of the sacraments have as clear a Biblical foundation as foot-washing does... Confirmation, Holy Orders or Confession certainly don't; their Biblical basis is IMO sketchy at best.

In foot-washing, we have something where Jesus explicitly says "I want you to do this", "do this for each other" and "this is an example for you to follow", but it's either practiced once a year or forgotten entirely. Other actions that are only referred to in offhand, vague ways, and they're elevated to the status of "sacrament".

It's always seemed disproportionate to me... especially in the Sola Scriptura Protestant denominations. If I sat down and tried to figure out exactly what Jesus cared about and what he wanted me to do using only the Bible, I don't see how I could ever come to the conclusion that baptism was more important than ritual foot-washing.

 

[yodh]

Only the Levitical law is obsolete.



Actually, it originate with Jesus. We can see that in what he said.
Jesus said he was God (the Jewish officials were very clear on this point--Mk 2:3-7, Jn 6:41-42, 10:30-33, 5:18, 8:58-59).
John said Jesus was God (Jn 1:1-3).
Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit as a divine person, another Comforter, as Jesus was a comforter, and referred to him with the personal pronoun, "he" (Jn 14:16-17, 25-26, 15:26, 16:7).
The NT presents three divine persons in one God.
He presented three separate divine persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

God’s Active Force; Holy Spirit. By far the majority of occurrences of ru′ach and pneu′ma relate to God’s spirit, his active force, his holy spirit.

Not a person. Not until the fourth century C.E. did the teaching that the holy spirit was a person and part of the “Godhead” become official church dogma. Early church “fathers” did not so teach; Justin Martyr of the second century C.E. taught that the holy spirit was an ‘influence or mode of operation of the Deity’; Hippolytus likewise ascribed no personality to the holy spirit. The Scriptures themselves unite to show that God’s holy spirit is not a person but is God’s active force by which he accomplishes his purpose and executes his will.

It may first be noted that the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (KJ) found in older translations at 1 John 5:7 are actually spurious additions to the original text. A footnote in The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, says that these words are “not in any of the early Greek MSS [manuscripts], or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg[ate] itself.” A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger (1975, pp. 716-718), traces in detail the history of the spurious passage. It states that the passage is first found in a treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus, of the fourth century, and that it appears in Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts of the Scriptures, beginning in the sixth century. Modern translations as a whole, both Catholic and Protestant, do not include them in the main body of the text, because of recognizing their spurious nature.—RS, NE, NAB.

Personification does not prove personality. It is true that Jesus spoke of the holy spirit as a “helper” and spoke of such helper as ‘teaching,’ ‘bearing witness,’ ‘giving evidence,’ ‘guiding,’ ‘speaking,’ ‘hearing,’ and ‘receiving.’ In so doing, the original Greek shows Jesus at times applying the personal pronoun “he” to that “helper” (paraclete). (Compare Joh 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15.) However, it is not unusual in the Scriptures for something that is not actually a person to be personalized or personified. Wisdom is personified in the book of Proverbs (1:20-33; 8:1-36); and feminine pronominal forms are used of it in the original Hebrew, as also in many English translations. (KJ, RS, JP, AT) Wisdom is also personified at Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35, where it is depicted as having both “works” and “children.” The apostle Paul personalized sin and death and also undeserved kindness as “kings.” (Ro 5:14, 17, 21; 6:12) He speaks of sin as “receiving an inducement,” ‘working out covetousness,’ ‘seducing,’ and ‘killing.’ (Ro 7:8-11) Yet it is obvious that Paul did not mean that sin was actually a person.

So, likewise with John’s account of Jesus’ words regarding the holy spirit, his remarks must be taken in context. Jesus personalized the holy spirit when speaking of that spirit as a “helper” (which in Greek is the masculine substantive pa·ra′kle·tos). Properly, therefore, John presents Jesus’ words as referring to that “helper” aspect of the spirit with masculine personal pronouns. On the other hand, in the same context, when the Greek pneu′ma is used, John employs a neuter pronoun to refer to the holy spirit, pneu′ma itself being neuter. Hence, we have in John’s use of the masculine personal pronoun in association with pa·ra′kle·tos an example of conformity to grammatical rules, not an expression of doctrine.—Joh 14:16, 17; 16:7, 8.

 

[smokydot]

God’s Active Force; Holy Spirit. By far the majority of occurrences of ru′ach and pneu′ma relate to God’s spirit, his active force, his holy spirit.

Not a person. Not until the fourth century C.E. did the teaching that the holy spirit was a person and part of the “Godhead” become official church dogma. Early church “fathers” did not so teach; Justin Martyr of the second century C.E. taught that the holy spirit was an ‘influence or mode of operation of the Deity’; Hippolytus likewise ascribed no personality to the holy spirit. The Scriptures themselves unite to show that God’s holy spirit is not a person but is God’s active force by which he accomplishes his purpose and executes his will.

It may first be noted that the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (KJ) found in older translations at 1 John 5:7 are actually spurious additions to the original text. A footnote in The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, says that these words are “not in any of the early Greek MSS [manuscripts], or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg[ate] itself.” A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger (1975, pp. 716-718), traces in detail the history of the spurious passage. It states that the passage is first found in a treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus, of the fourth century, and that it appears in Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts of the Scriptures, beginning in the sixth century. Modern translations as a whole, both Catholic and Protestant, do not include them in the main body of the text, because of recognizing their spurious nature.—RS, NE, NAB.

Personification does not prove personality. It is true that Jesus spoke of the holy spirit as a “helper” and spoke of such helper as ‘teaching,’ ‘bearing witness,’ ‘giving evidence,’ ‘guiding,’ ‘speaking,’ ‘hearing,’ and ‘receiving.’ In so doing, the original Greek shows Jesus at times applying the personal pronoun “he” to that “helper” (paraclete). (Compare Joh 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15.) However, it is not unusual in the Scriptures for something that is not actually a person to be personalized or personified. Wisdom is personified in the book of Proverbs (1:20-33; 8:1-36); and feminine pronominal forms are used of it in the original Hebrew, as also in many English translations. (KJ, RS, JP, AT) Wisdom is also personified at Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35, where it is depicted as having both “works” and “children.” The apostle Paul personalized sin and death and also undeserved kindness as “kings.” (Ro 5:14, 17, 21; 6:12) He speaks of sin as “receiving an inducement,” ‘working out covetousness,’ ‘seducing,’ and ‘killing.’ (Ro 7:8-11) Yet it is obvious that Paul did not mean that sin was actually a person.

So, likewise with John’s account of Jesus’ words regarding the holy spirit, his remarks must be taken in context. Jesus personalized the holy spirit when speaking of that spirit as a “helper” (which in Greek is the masculine substantive pa·ra′kle·tos). Properly, therefore, John presents Jesus’ words as referring to that “helper” aspect of the spirit with masculine personal pronouns. On the other hand, in the same context, when the Greek pneu′ma is used, John employs a neuter pronoun to refer to the holy spirit, pneu′ma itself being neuter. Hence, we have in John’s use of the masculine personal pronoun in association with pa·ra′kle·tos an example of conformity to grammatical rules, not an expression of doctrine.—Joh 14:16, 17; 16:7, 8.

Your last paragraph is addressed by me in this Forum,
on the thread, "Who IS 'The Only TRUE God'"--as Jesus put it?",
in post #258, at my fifth response.

 

[jtartar]

Okay, explain why Mark 13:30 says,

"Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. "
​

and why the generation passed and none of those things were done.

Skwim,
At Mark 13:1, Jesus' disciples spoke to him about the great and beautiful stones that made up the Temple mount. Jesus told them in verse 2 that those great buildings would be thrown down. At verses 3,4, Jesus disciples came to him and asked, When will these things be and what would be the sign when all these things are destined to come to a conclusion??
Jesus then gave his disciples a long range, and twofold conclusion, one in their day, and one in our day. The conclusion in their day was in 70CE when the Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem and The Temple which ended the Jewish system of things. Jesus was exactly right, that destruction came within their generation.
The generation that Jesus spoke about at Mark 13:30, has a greater fulfillment in our day. The generation spoken about started in 1914!! Why do I say that??
To understand completely we must go back to the year 607BCE. This is the date that Jerusalem and the great Temple that Soloman built in Jerusalem, was destroyed by Nebuchadressar. When God allowed His Temple to be destroyed it meant that He was no longer with the Nation of Israel, and also His spirit was taken away from the nation, as a whole. What is written at Eze 21:25-27 is speaking about that exact time. Also the prophecy at Daniel 4:10-17, we are told of a dream that Nebuchadressar had about a Great Tree that was to be cut down and banded with a band of copper, or bronze, this for a period of Seven Times. For Nebuchadressar that seven times amounted to seven years. As can be seen by the description of this tree it cannot be a real tree, Dan 4:11,12,16,17. This great tree actually pictures God's Kingdom on earth, where at Jerusalem's great Temple was the seat of true religion on the entire earth. The band on the stump pictures a time when no King would actually sit on, what was called God's Throne, 1Chron 28:5, 29:23. In history and Bible chronology this period is called the Times of the Gentiles, and the March of the Nations. At the end of this time period, the Kingdom of God would again have a King of God's choosing.
In ancient Bible history prophecies sometimes used a formula that one day stood for a year, Num 14:34, Eze 4:5,6. In Bible prophecy a year was 360 days, a month was 30 days. Seven years was then, 2,520 days. Applying this to the formula the Times of the Gentiles would be a period of 2,520 YEARS. Remember that the time started in 607BC. If we add 2,520 years to 607BC we come to the date of 1914, because there was NO O year.
What happened to let us know for sure that Jesus started sitting of the Throne of God's Kingdom in 1914. The scenerio was spoken of at Rev 12:1-6, which pictures the Birth of the Kingdom of God on earth again. Notice the first thing that happened, WAR in heaven with Satan being thrown down to the earth, with all his demon angels, Rev 12:7-9. NOW, what would you think this would mean for the conditions on earth? The bible tells us at Rev 12:12. WW1 started in 1914 and we have nothing but trouble since that year, WW2, and continuing wars, then pestilences, crime, violence, earthquakes, all sign that Jesus gave his disciples as the SIGN they asked for to mark the Conclusion of this system of things.
Another prophecy also points to the time period that we are now living in, Rev 6:2-8, picturing Jesus receiving the crown and beginning his ride to conquer, and the troubles on earth, Wars, famine, and early death of millions.
The Bible tells us that Jesus would Reign in the midst of his enemies, which is now the case, Ps 110:1,2, 1Cor 15:24,25.
Jesus has been ruling as King of God's Kingdom since 1914!!! Shortly, When God's command goes forth, Jesus will come as executioner of all who do not worship God and all who do not Obey our lord Jesus, 2Thes 1:6-9, Rev 16:16, Rev 19:10-21. This has been prophesied about for thousands of years, and is on the very threshold of being completed, Ps 2:2, 6-9, Isa 11:1-9. After the earth is cleansed of all who will not obey Jesus, a paradise will be set up on earth, the very one that Jesus promised to the evildoer who died by his side, Luke 23:39-43, Rev 21:3-5.
Then we will live through the Thousand Year Judgement Day, in which billions of people in the memorial tombs will be resurrected, John 5:28,29, and the ones who live through the Great Tribulation will grow toward perfection, and be tested as to being worthy of having everlasting live bestowed on them. At the end of the Thousand Year Judgement Day we will have completed the SEVENTH Creative Day an the fulfillment of God's purpose for earth, A PARADISE with perfect people living forever, Ps 37:29, Isa 45:18, 55:11.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Is the baptism of John from heaven or from men?

 

[smokydot]

Is the baptism of John from heaven or from men?

This involves more of that "imaginary substance," which you complained about (post #763, on Life Begins at Conception thread), to "connect"
Jesus' response being the answer they were seeking to the question, "By what authority are you doing these things? And who gave this authority?"

John's baptism was from heaven.

John was a prophet, and all prophecy is from God.

In answer to their question, Jesus used the divine authority of John's baptism to indicate that his authority, likewise, came from God.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Is the baptism of John from heaven or from men?

Are any baptisms from men? as a sacrement would that not be a missuse of the term.