Got questions regarding what the Bible teaches?

[smokydot]

This thread will not attempt to prove the Bible is true.
It is intended for those with questions who want to look into doctrines of the Bible for the purpose of understanding them.
So, of course, the Bible will be the only source of information regarding its doctrines.

Questions might include things such as:
Does the New Testament abolish the Levitical laws of the Old Testament? Why?
Where does the doctrine of the Trinity come from? Is it in the Bible?
Did Jesus say he was God? Why do Christians believe he is God?

If you're looking for understanding of Biblical doctrines, we can look into them here.

 

[Skwim]

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.

 

[Katzpur]

Does the New Testament abolish the Levitical laws of the Old Testament? Why?

Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses. That does not mean, however, that every commandment given in the Old Testament is obsolete and irrelevant to those who follow Jesus Christ.

Where does the doctrine of the Trinity come from? Is it in the Bible?

The doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible. It was formulated by the council held at Nicea in 325 A.D. Don't get me started.

Did Jesus say he was God? Why do Christians believe he is God?

He never implied that He was the same individual as His Father, if that's who you are referring to as "God." As the Son of God, He had all of the attributes of deity His Father had.

 

[smokydot]

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.

Could he have been referring to the generation which sees the things of v.29?

 

[Skwim]

Could he have been referring to the generation which sees the things of v.29?

Answer a question with a question is it. Hmmm. Well, I assume Mark 13:30 referrs to verse 29 and the several that precede it, from maybe Verse 22 - verse 29.

 

[smokydot]

Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses. That does not mean, however, that every commandment given in the Old Testament is obsolete and irrelevant to those who follow Jesus Christ.

Only the Levitical law is obsolete.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible. It was formulated by the council held at Nicea in 325 A.D. Don't get me started.

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 never implied that He was the same individual as His Father, if that's who you are referring to as "God." As the Son of God, He had all of the attributes of deity His Father had.

He presented three separate divine persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[Katzpur]

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.

Okay, well it appears we're talking right past each other. I never said I don't believe in the Godhead. I don't believe in the Nicene Creed (or any later Creeds) because they say things that are not taught in the Bible. I agree that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "one God." I disagree as to the way in which they are "one."

 

[smokydot]

Okay, well it appears we're talking right past each other. I never said I don't believe in the Godhead.

Then I misunderstood you when you said the doctrine of the Trinity was not in the Bible, which is why I pointed out where it could be found.

I don't believe in the Nicene Creed (or any later Creeds) because they say things that are not taught in the Bible. I agree that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "one God." I disagree as to the way in which they are "one."

 

[Katzpur]

Then I misunderstood you when you said the doctrine of the Trinity was not in the Bible, which is why I pointed out where it could be found.

No, you didn't misunderstand me at all. Where does the Bible describe God as an indivisible substance?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This thread will not attempt to prove the Bible is true.
It is intended for those with questions who want to look into doctrines of the Bible for the purpose of understanding them.
So, of course, the Bible will be the only source of information regarding its doctrines.

Questions might include things such as:
Does the New Testament abolish the Levitical laws of the Old Testament? Why?
Where does the doctrine of the Trinity come from? Is it in the Bible?
Did Jesus say he was God? Why do Christians believe he is God?

If you're looking for understanding of Biblical doctrines, we can look into them here.

I've got one for you that I've always wondered about: given the importance that Jesus places on foot-washing in the Last Supper stories in the Gospels, why do the mainstream Christian churches place so little emphasis on the practice?

 

[waitasec]

Answer a question with a question is it. Hmmm. Well, I assume Mark 13:30 referrs to verse 29 and the several that precede it, from maybe Verse 22 - verse 29.

here's my 2 cents...

but why say "this generation will not pass away" if he is speaking about a future generation?

also "this" is a demonstrative pronoun which denotes something that is present it would have been "that" generation which would point out, or refer to, the generation previously mentioned...if that was what he meant if he was referring to the generation in vs. 22 - 29

but if you go back a little further to vs 21...
21At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ[c]!' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. 22For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible.

seems as though he is speaking to and about his contemporary generation

 

[Skwim]

here's my 2 cents...

but why say "this generation will not pass away" if he is speaking about a future generation?

also "this" is a demonstrative pronoun which denotes something that is present it would have been "that" generation which would point out, or refer to, the generation previously mentioned...if that was what he meant if he was referring to the generation in vs. 22 - 29

but if you go back a little further to vs 21...
21At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ[c]!' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. 22For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible.

seems as though he is speaking to and about his contemporary generation

That's how I read it. " . . . all these things be done" would happen before "this [present] generation" passed.

 

[Romeo Corbes]

I do believed in the Holy Trinity. The bases are the following verses in the bible.First in Matthew 28:19." go ye therefor, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Second in John 13:20, " Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me".Third in John 14:16-17, " And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever. 17. Even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him but ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. See also John 14: 26; John 15:26.

And Jesus told us of the coming of the Holy Spirit. Please read John 16: 7-13.KJV.

In the book of revelation 3:12, says "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out; and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God and I will write upon him my new name". You can also read revelation 19:7-9 about the marriage of the Lamb and his wife.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I do believed in the Holy Trinity. The bases are the following verses in the bible.First in Matthew 28:19." go ye therefor, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Second in John 13:20, " Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me".Third in John 14:16-17, " And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever. 17. Even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him but ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. See also John 14: 26; John 15:26.

And Jesus told us of the coming of the Holy Spirit. Please read John 16: 7-13.KJV.

In the book of revelation 3:12, says "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out; and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God and I will write upon him my new name". You can also read revelation 19:7-9 about the marriage of the Lamb and his wife.

I would agree with Kathryn's interpretation of a Trinity.
We are agreeing that God Jesus and the Holy spirit make up the God head. (a Trinity)
However the Bishops in Nicea went further and invented a string of detailed concepts to explain it. It is these concepts that the Trinitarian churches insist on, not a belief that God Jesus and the holy spirit make up the Godhead. The words in the Bible suggest no more than this.

 

[smokydot]

I've got one for you that I've always wondered about: given the importance that Jesus places on foot-washing in the Last Supper stories in the Gospels, why do the mainstream Christian churches place so little emphasis on the practice?

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.

John is the only gospel to report a foot washing. And John does not report its occurrence at a Passover meal, as was the Last Supper.
John emphasizes signs in his gospel, reporting events which point to spiritual realities.
This event demonstrated, among other things, the spiritual reality which cleanses of sin--faith in the cleansing blood of Jesus.

Foot washing is not part of hospitality today, and with the cleansing blood of Jesus now a reality, there is no need for a sign pointing to it.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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.

 

[smokydot]

No, you didn't misunderstand me at all. Where does the Bible describe God as an indivisible substance?

To be sure I understand you:

Are you saying that if Scripture does not describe God as indivisible, then he can be divisible?
By divisible, do you mean there can be more than one of him, more than one God?

Does Jesus answer that question in Mk 12:29, ". . .'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one (Lord). . .' (Deut 6:4)"?
". . .the Lord is God; besides him there is no other." (Dt 4:35)
". . .the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other." (Dt 4:39)
"You alone are the Lord." (Neh 9:6)
"You alone are God." (Psm 86:10)
". . .apart from me there is no God." (Isa 44:6)
". . .there is no God but one." (1 Cor 8:4)
". . .one God and Father of all, . ." (Eph 4:6)
"You believe there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder." (Jam 2:19)

 

[bowingtoGod]

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

 

[Katzpur]

To be sure I understand you:

Are you saying that if Scripture does not describe God as indivisible, then he can be divisible?
By divisible, do you mean there can be more than one of him, more than one God?

Does Jesus answer that question in Mk 12:29, ". . .'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one (Lord). . .' (Deut 6:4)"?
". . .the Lord is God; besides him there is no other." (Dt 4:35)
". . .the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other." (Dt 4:39)
"You alone are the Lord." (Neh 9:6)
"You alone are God." (Psm 86:10)
". . .apart from me there is no God." (Isa 44:6)
". . .there is no God but one." (1 Cor 8:4)
". . .one God and Father of all, . ." (Eph 4:6)
"You believe there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder." (Jam 2:19)

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?

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?

 

[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?

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?

I think I've got my historical figures correct when I say the word "substance" (form, etc.) is used in Thomistic/Aristotilian philosophy, but don't hold me to that.

Nevertheless, substance means what underlies all outward manifestations; real, unchanging essence or nature, that in which qualties or accidents, inhere.
It's not a Biblical word, it's a philosophical word.

The creeds were used to clarify Biblical doctrine against all the existing heresies at the time.