The Evangelical Universalist Forum

70 AD- calling you Davo

Oh, come now - Chad. You are quoting passages out of context. And you want me to present paragraphs - putting EACH into context? Holy Jumping catfish. Great balls of fire. And all those corny Cliches , from the Adam West Batman TV series. :laughing:

Well, different theologians - historical and contemporary…And different churches - historical and contemporary…have different contexts, for each of these passages.

For example. Look at this article, from the Patheos evangelical newsletter:

Jesus Recommends Gun Ownership?

Wherein this passage - where Jesus speaks:

Could be used, to endorse US gun ownership. :laughing:

Unless we read the article…and see the context, in which this verse was used.

If you, Davo, and others here - and elsewhere…whether people, zombies or space aliens…or groups I haven’t mentioned - like vampires and werewolves…wish to side with full preterism…So be it! I respect that.

Usually, I walk into an Eastern Orthodox bar…point the bartender, to the theologians…and say,

:laughing:

Or I walk into a Buddhist bar…point to some Buddhists meditating and playing cards…and say,

But I also reserve the right…to apply some Holy Fool humor - to various theological and political “representations”. Usually, the Holy Fools bar…has a stand up comedian day. :laughing:

And don’t get me started, on the zombie bars…They are “kind of dead” - in my opinion. :laughing:

Just a footnote here. I get all GIF images, from a Google keyword search. And I insure the images, are geared to a GP audience. Same as I do, when I post things - on social media. If any of my images, are consider R-rated… Please point out the image to me. I don’t think zombies having lunch, are suitable images - for a GP audience. But folks dressed as zombies - via Hollywood make-up artistry - are considered suitable. Sometimes, it’s hard to balance - between images and text. And so folks won’t get locked into GIF images, I’ll “stir it up” (see song youtu.be/S3UqvWk8-uw). Meaning sometimes I’ll use a GIF…sometimes a cartoon…and sometimes a still image. All honoring the high standards…of the Russian Orthodox, Holy Fools tradition. :smiley:

Randy said:

Great :laughing:

I would say that the use of the term ‘Law’ is a hint :slight_smile:

There were Christians both of Jewish and Gentile backgrounds in the church at Rome. Paul doesn’t particularly address Jews alone in his letter. Rather he is writing to ALL true Christians whether Jew or Gentile:

He is also clear in the passage that qaz quoted from Romans 2, that those warnings are to “the Jew first and also the Greek.” Indeed he emphasized this by using the phrase twice. It certainly seems clear that Paul’s warnings were universal, and apply to all people in the Roman Church. In my opinion, they also apply to all people from Paul’s day to our day.

Respectfully I ask ‘So what’ :astonished: You continually want to put your narrative into a historical document. Where the he… heck do you get off saying that Paul was addressing the universal church in 2017?

Questions for you, Chad (or others can chime in):

When Paul was writing his epistles - to the churches. Did he ask them, to put up a sign: “Only Jews are allowed in this church?”
Paul was a Roman citizen - was he not? Did he envision that ONLY Jews were Roman citizens? Did he EXCLUDE Roman citizens from the churches, he wrote to or for?
Was Paul writing ONLY for his time or did he envision others - after his death - might read his writings? Why or why not?

Let’s view a Q and A, from the Calvinist site - Got Questions:

Did the writers of the New Testament regard their writings as Scripture?

So:

Do you agree that they regarded their writings as scripture?
And if so, were they only for current generations or also future generations?

First I have to say sorry to Don as I got a bit upset. :blush:
Randy asked:

Those are good questions.

If I take Paul’s writings as being perpetually thought of as the word of God (scripture) through all eternity, it is akin to someone recommending a hoarse and wagon or a pulled rickshaw as the ideal mode of transportation, even though we now live in an age of powerful automobiles and Jet airplanes. A view of the bible as scripture to be followed to the letter has a hard time evolving and growing with culture changes and human evolution. But most fundamentalists will counter with the idea that it is that very thing that makes Christians a ‘peculiar people’ :laughing:

I’ve witnessed it time and time again, Christians trying to literalize what is in the bible, and many tend to want to get back to the way it ought to be (what ever that is) much like many Americans lament the glory days of the 1950’s (Andy Griffith and Leave It to Beaver :laughing:)

That literalness or ‘static state’ is why I view the whole of the bible as an historic account. The literalness and message works if we keep it confined to the timeframe it was written. When we try to bend it out of that frame, we start changing meaning or picking and choosing what parts we will agree with and follow.

And I think it is why the modern 21st century church is dying.

So to answer your question, I think Paul was given revelation and his instructions were to a church that was going to be severely tested in short order.

Side note as to what I was saying earlier in the post, do we realize there are still churches who do not let women speak in the congregation because of that one passage written by Paul? :open_mouth:

Amazing

I think most Protestant, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, would say scripture was written for all generations. But the theologies will change, depending on the Protestant church or theologian. Or what the Roman Catholic Magisterium says - at the moment. The only branch that has tried, to keep the historical context intact - is Eastern Orthodoxy. Hence, not much has changed with them theologically - over the centuries. At least not major, that is.

I think there is a purpose, to keeping ancient stuff alive. Whether it is the sacraments, of Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Or the ancient rites and ceremonies - of the Lakota and other tribes. There is an old saying:

:laughing:

Let’s end with a revival song. :smiley:

No need to be sorry for what you said. But I do want to answer the question. I’m not sure why my words caused you to be angry.

First, I did not say that Paul was addressing the universal church in 2017.

Do you disagree with this? Was he not writing to the church at Rome? Was he not addressing both Jews and Gentiles who were part of that church.

Then I concluded with:

First, I prefixed the statement with the phrase “in my opinion.” Secondly I stated that my opinion was that Paul’s words APPLY to all people from his day to ours. In what way am I “getting off” or trying to “get away with” something by stating this opinion.

Don, I appreciate you. I lashed out and should not have. I don’t very often agree with you but I can also see your motives and position are sincere. Thanks.

I think if you look at the post I posted to Randy’s question, you’ll get a feel of where I am at, as if you don’t already know.

Now you did say:

So then you said:

Maybe you can elaborate :question:

I am aware of such churches.

In both the fellowships we attend, sisters can express their thoughts about, or understanding of, the Scripture during the meetings. However, in neither fellowship are their female elders or pastors or even deacons (whereas the New Testament writers particularly name some of the female deacons of that day).

Randy, I believe this is true.

However, I disagree with this. From what I understand, the words that Jesus spoke came from the beginning.
There was no Trinity. It was God and man, and God put His Spirit in man’s mind and heart. This was the Word. God and man were one in Spirit, and man was given dominion over the earth.
There was no Bible. Man operated by faith in the Spirit of God inside his heart and mind to determine the difference between right and wrong(the moral law, the Golden Rule)
Men and women were equal, having been given the same Spirit.
There was no other “religion”.

Hi, LLC. Theology ends up, being a matter of belief. You can have either:

Theologies that follow close to the norm, of a bell shaped curb
Or those theologies that deviate substantially, from the bell shaped curve (like you might find, with some here)

If God allows others - who don’t know Christ now - to enter the kingdom (as I regard as an inclusiist, whether they actively know Christ or not now)… God will also make room, for different Christian theologies - that deviate from the statistical norm - to enter the kingdom.

When all is finally over, God will direct us - to the right theology. But in God’s infinite compassion, he will make room for those deviating - from whatever the “right” theology is.

In the meantime, you can check any links - in my signature. Or put the keyword phase into Google. They more or less, tell where I stand theologically - on different issues.

There is a good article, by the author who wrote the article on Inclusivist :

Is Right Relationship with God More Important Than Right Theology?

I leave it for everyone, to read and ponder. :smiley:

If we don’t have “orthodox” theology, then how does our relationship and conception of Christ:

Differ from the Muslim, who looks at Jesus as a prophet?
Differ from the Bahá’í, who looks at Jesus - as one of the “manifestations of God”?
Differ from the Jews, who view him - as a good Rabbi?
Differ from the Hindus, who look on him - as one of many avatars?
Or the Mormon Joseph Smith’s - idea of Christ?
Etc.?

Let’s view a user comment - and author answer - from the article:

And that’s to sing a song - about this. :laughing:

Randy, I hear this parroted by many people. As far as God’s character and nature is concerned, if it is a continuous revelation wherein man did not have the knowledge of God in the past, and now we do, then there is something new under the sun. However, as you said, there is nothing new under the sun. Jesus did not teach us anything new. These things were already known by those who came before, clear back to Adam. In fact, as it says in Exodus, Moses gave the Israelites the bread of life. All the prophets in the Bible were saying the same things that what Jesus was saying.

From what I understand, there is no theology to follow. We are simply to love God, follow the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.

Well, if it wasn’t “new” it was certainly different from Moses depiction of God. Moses portrayed God as a killer of people, and one who commanded the Israelites to wipe out a whole nations including women, children, and babies. Jesus taught that God is kind to both ungrateful people and to evil people. (Luke 6:35)

How well do you “follow” or keep “the Ten Commandments”? Do you have any degree of non-following where to break one is to be guilty of all?

Simply because there is no logical connection between Jesus and Moses as persons. Moses wrote according to his limited knowledge of God, ascribing to God’s character that which is false. Jesus is the Son of God begotten as the first of God’s acts. He is the EXACT image of the Father’s essence (Hebrews 1:3). As the Son of God, He knows His Father as no one else ever knew Him. Your “logic” if consistent, would affirm that because Jesus spoke according to the working of the Father within Him, then it would logically follow Justin Martyr spoke according to the working of the Father within him, and so did Clement of Rome, the writer to Diognetus, Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenæus, etc., etc., etc.

There’s nothing consistent about that whatever, unless, of course you are a hold the believe that the Bible is flawless, and believe everything found in a book whose contents have MANY sources, is totally consistent. That sounds like the belief of Fundamentalists.

I didn’t plead ANY excuses for Jesus’ error, since He didn’t err in any way. All you have shown is that a writer recorded him as having made an error.

Why within and not beyond? Is there something magical about the Biblical text? Something sacred that renders it totally true? Something that renders it fundamentally correct in every respect?

This I think is where the idea of salvation is so often contingent upon ones definition :open_mouth:

Well the logical connection of Scripture would disagree with your assessment, saying… like Yahweh’s prophet Moses, a greater than Moses was to be found in Jesus…

Luke likewise agrees with this testimony concerning the unity and connection of Jesus and Moses saying…

…shall be utterly destroyed… — ”Does Luke now qualify as does Mark to be on your list of NT suspect writers?

Again, your assessment would seem false or at least itself, limited. LIKE Jesus, Moses spoke that which he heard from the Father…

In terms of ‘the Prophet of GodMoses and Jesus are in the same boat, which really puts the sword through your odd critique of Moses’ trustworthiness…

These texts above completely rebut and make a nonsense of your dodgy dogma that… “there is no logical connection between Jesus and Moses”.

Again odd!! There is nothing in my logic to suggest that at all. Jesus was the prophet to come and emulates Moses in speaking Yahweh’s words to Israel… Moses gave warnings — Jesus gave warnings; that you like neither doesn’t nullify either. Jesus was ‘the Prophet’, not John the Baptist (Jn 1:21), not Justin Martyr, nor anyone else.

I’m pretty sure any following along having read any of my thoughts know full well by now I’m no Fundamentalist. SO… on what basis do you then make these arbitrary judgments of yours against the words of so many OT prophets but are afraid to apply the same consistency to the words of Jesus?

I suspect keeping in line with your practice of excising swathes of OT texts for their apparent errant recordings (based on nothing else than your mere say-so) you’ll need to be doing likewise with those NT text you also deem as written in error as well… IF you’re consistent that is. HOW and on what basis do you have any confidence in biblical writers who in your opinion falsely record Yahweh or Jesus? What is your MO?

No, none of those magical things… but rather, the veracity of the HISTORIC context of those biblical times where Israel was redeemed and the world reconciled.

Does the Old Testament teach everything that the Lord Jesus reveals as truth in the New Testament, such as, for 2 examples that occur ATM, these things that He revealed to His disciples:

Mt.24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Col.1:26 the secret that hath been hid from the ages and from the generations, but now was manifested to his saints,