|
The question of the day
is...........
Why would God present an impossibility? Or for
that matter give us an incomprehensible Word to guide us?
I post the following as "Selected" with the hope
that the message will be taken seriously rather than the opportunity to
tear down the messenger:
"The idea of correcting the bible, using a Greek
dictionary or a Greek reference work, denies the doctrine of the pure
preservation of scriptures. Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is given
by inspiration of God" We know the originals were inspired Psalm 12:6-7
says, "The worlds of the Lord are pure words... Thou shalt keep
them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for
ever"
God promised to preserve his word in a pure form. The
originals were pure and inspired; he promised to preserve it, and so it is still
pure and it is still inspired, according to Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV) We know the
original paper is long gone. In Jeremiah 51:63 God commanded Jeremiah to throw
his originals in the river, so we know that God is not concerned with the
originals. The promise of pure and perfect preservation extends to every word,
not to the paper upon which they were written.
Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the
heaven and the earth" That is a very, very powerful God, but if God says,
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away"
(Matt 24:35) - what great care and power he must extend to those
words.
Correcting the "Word of God" with the words of men
(Greek dictionaries) brings dishonor to our heavenly Father and his authority.
Small wonder God's children do not "tremble at his word" His
bride, continually corrects him in their presence with "a better reading
would be..." or "the word should have been
translated..."
The Berean call was to "search the
scriptures daily" not correct them. When the bible refers to
"scriptures" as it does here in Acts 17:11, the reference is to copies not
original manuscripts. Consider 2 Timothy 3:15, "From a child thou hast
known the holy scriptures" Neither he nor the Ethiopian eunuch, who
also read "the scriptures" had the 800 year old originals of the book of
Isaiah. If "the word" is a Greek text only, then only the Greek
speaking churches could "preach the word" (2 Tim 4:2) and only those
fluent in Greek could be "born again by the word" Acts 2:6 says "Every man
heard them speak in his own language"
Is God in the business of deceiving housewives who do
not have access to a library of Greek reference books? 1 Cor 6:4 reminds us to
"set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church" We can
have confidence that "every word" in the KJ Bible is the pure word of
God."
John writes > Christ . .
. speaks of perfection as the Heavenly
Father is perfect
(substitute "maturity"
-- it makes no difference) and in so doing, presents an
impossibility.
Perhaps, but I rather think the tense and mood of this verb in
Matthew 5.48 is a future indicative and not a present imperative (i.e., it is
not a commandment at all, but a statement concerning his hearers'
prospective state); in other words, the verse should read, "Therefore,
you will be perfect," as opposed to "Be ye therefore perfect." Check
it out and see if you agree.
Bill
By the way, I'm back -- and about 600 messages behind. I'll try
to get caught up, but probably won't be doing much in the way of posting, as I
am perpetually swamped with papers to grade.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 7:43
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ and the
Law
And you will never be as perfect as the Heavenly Father, you will not
pluck out your eye or tell others to do so, ditto for the cutting
off of the hand. The Sermon is still not used in Holy
Writ as a basis of legal or doctrinal argumentation and the Lord's
prayer remains unused even by Christ (John 17). What we do
with this Sermon is not my point. What was Christ's true point? I do much the
same as you with this Sermon. But I do have reasons for not doing some
of it , as well. And some of that reason effects what I tell
married/divorced/married couples. What I do not do
is go looking for the legalese of the
teaching because legalese is not
the point NT scripture.
I do not believe for a second that a man who molests his children or beats
his wife or lives of f the efforts of the woman in any way binds the spouse to a life-time of misery and
loneliness. New Testament scripture is not about
law. It can't be. If we could have been saved by the
law, if righteousness came by the law -- we wouldn't need a
"new" anything. The Old Law - which came directly from
God (and does He do anything half way ??) -- would have
done the trick. But we are led by the Spirit
------------- all men have this "ability" because it is tied to who they are as a creation of
God. Philip 2:12-13 is a statement of ontology regarding man. John 3:21 makes
it clear that the good works we do, any time in our lives, are the works of
God within us. We have always had this choice -- to
live by legalese or the Spirit. And so David says, it is not sac
rifice you desire but a broken and contrite heart !!!!
Abraham is the father of all who live by this
faith-exchanged-for-righteousness. Christ on the cross has made
us right ALREADY. So why the need for the deeds of the
law? Only as they represent an extension of faith, love and
the Spirit (they are all very much related) and for NO OTHER
REASON. One cannot command the ontological
!!!!!!!!! Start breathing
!!!!!!!!!!! Don't exhale !!!!!!!!! You must
love ME !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jd -----Original
Message----- From: Terry Clifton < wabbits1234@earthlink.net> To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 07:10:17
-0600 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ and the Law
Jesus does not
talk just to make noise, John. Those who love Him hang on every word
He says. The sermon on the mount is most valuable to me. I
believe that those who divorce and remarry for reasons other than sexual sin
are living in adultery. I believe you will be blessed when you hunger
and thirst for righteousness or when you show mercy. I intend to keep going
the extra mile, giving the shirt off my back, and turning the other
cheek. Often it costs me to do this, but the price I pay is nothing
compared to the price Jesus paid for me. If it is legalism to follow His instructions,
then I plead guilty to being a legalist. Terry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A few additional
comments -----Original
Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent:
Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:04:45 -0500 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ and the
Law
Regarding the recent discussion about divorce
and remarriage:
My advice to couples finding themselves in impossible or difficult
situations includes admonitions to try to work things out. I
do not view the Sermon on the Mount as a legal document. My
God is not a legalist. And a
thorough going exegetical study of Romans 2 and 3 ( those comments
discussing "law" and "the Law") gives the student reason for
resisting the temptation to turn the Sermon into nothing more that a
statement of the "New Law."
"You have heard it said" is a passage of thought used in the
Sermon. It refers the listeners (and readers) to what was said in the Law of
Moses. "Eye for an eye" is a part of the law as found in
Leviticus. Divorce for reasons other than adultery was a part
of the Old Law. Walking the second mile was a change from
accepted cultural values. "Sin" in the Law of Moses was not
defined as a matter of the heart - it was an
event. Christ teaches
us how we should pray, yet not a single prayer in scripture is
of the pattern example including the Lord's prayer in John 17.
He speaks of perfection as the Heavenly Father is perfect (substitute "maturity"
-- it makes no difference) and in so doing, presents an
impossibility. ; ; Christ challenges all
of this and more.
In this sermon, Christ intensifies the burden of law -
knowing that in time and in Him we will not be called into account for
law's violations. Additionally, with this Sermon, He
establishes the radical nature of His thinking, of His
Lordship. The Sermon is never referred to as NT
writers seek to establish their teachings.
When was the last time you plucked your eye or cut off your hand or
gave your clothing to your enemy? He knows that no one under the law
is "holy" (7:11) and His teaching just makes things
worse. If you do not tie this Sermon to Paul's discussions on
The Law and law in general; if you do not accept the teaching
that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, that Spirit leadership frees us from the Law
and law in general -- then you will miss the point of the
Sermon entirely.
The time and content of this sermon is critical to understanding just
what the Master had in mind in terms of ultimate purpose.
Jd
|
