Who made God?

[Papa Zoom]

Not only did I read it, I made reference to it.edit oops no I didn't, I had a mind to but commented on 304 instead
You think certain things are metaphore, it seems because you read it somewhere....Mickelsen was it?
Two things about me.
1. I do not think many of those things you call metaphore are metaphore.
2. I do allow any author of any commentary to take priority over the Bible.
So there is no point in my discussing anything with you because our faith platforms are entirely different.
You will never hear me say well the word of God is clear on this point, but Mickelsen thinks otherwise so he must be right.......(because he wrote a book??)
bye

One small point about authors of commentary: All of us are authors of our own commentary on the Bible. You have a filter as do I and we all infer meaning from the text. This is the problem. We need to read the views of others who have studied the text deeply and then do a deep study ourselves. You are making commentary right now. That's why you are here. Bible commentaries and other textual tools can help us in sorting things out. We may still be wrong in our understanding in the end but at least we tried. Just sharing my approach and thoughts to the matter.

 

[calvin]

Yes for the most part I agree with you. Where things go sour for me is when I or another are told I am wrong just because author x holds a different view, and author x must be right because he has written several books or because he teaches at goshwatta university or something.
Having and sharing different views is healthy for so long as it is done peaceably, respectfully and thoughtfully.

 

[Jim Parker]

The bottom line is whan you change genesis from a literal historical account you need to change a lot of other places in the bible..inother words "metaphor up the bible"

You are assuming that Genesis was written as a literal historic account.
And there is no necessity to change anything in the Bible.
There is a necessity to recognize a metaphor when a metaphor is used.
There is a necessity to recognize that the Bible is literature, written by very skilled communicators who used every literary devise at their command.
To regard everything as a "literal historical account" is to do violence to the scriptures by forcing the Bible into a mold of your own making rather than letting the authors speak according to their abilities to communicate the revelation of God.

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

I do not allow any author of any commentary to take priority over the Bible.

Actually, you do not allow any author of any commentary to take priority over your opinion of what the Bible says based on your best understanding.
That's what everyone does.
That's why the apostolic tradition (the historic teaching of the Church) is important. It preserves the teaching of the apostles so we don't have to figure out what was meant by something written 2000 years ago, in a language we don't speak, from a culture we don't know, from a worldview that is foreign to us.
That's why we go (or, we should go) to the teaching of the historic Church which is "...the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." 1Ti 3:15

Everybody coming up with his own interpretation is how we got tens of thousands of Protestant sects, denominations, etc. all claiming to be right because they are all led into the truth by the Holy Spirit. (Who, based on the multitude of opinions among the congregations, apparently has a variety of opinions on what the scriptures mean.)



Iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

Having and sharing different views is healthy for so long as it is done peaceably, respectfully and thoughtfully.

Arius had a different view.
Nestorius had a different view.
Sibelius had a different view.
Joseph Smith had a different View.
Marcion had a different view.
Charles Taze Russell had a different view.
Jim Jones had a different view.
Is it healthy that we should we peaceably tolerate those heresies? (The meaning of the word "heresy" is, essentially, "a different view.")
Or is it tolerating the poison of eternal death to those who swallow it?


You must purge the evil from among you. (DT 13:5; 17:7, 12; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21, 22, 24; 24:7)

iakov the fool

 

[calvin]

Arius had a different view.
Nestorius had a different view.
Sibelius had a different view.
Joseph Smith had a different View.
Marcion had a different view.
Charles Taze Russell had a different view.
Jim Jones had a different view.
Is it healthy that we should we peaceably tolerate those heresies? (The meaning of the word "heresy" is, essentially, "a different view.")
Or is it tolerating the poison of eternal death to those who swallow it?


You must purge the evil from among you. (DT 13:5; 17:7, 12; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21, 22, 24; 24:7)

iakov the fool

Now then that is not what I was suggesting and I'm sure you know it.
Anyways I'm done with this particular thread.

 

[calvin]

Actually, you do not allow any author of any commentary to take priority over your opinion of what the Bible says based on your best understanding.
That's what everyone does.
That's why the apostolic tradition (the historic teaching of the Church) is important. It preserves the teaching of the apostles so we don't have to figure out what was meant by something written 2000 years ago, in a language we don't speak, from a culture we don't know, from a worldview that is foreign to us.
That's why we go (or, we should go) to the teaching of the historic Church which is "...the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." 1Ti 3:15

Yes, that is one thing, doctrine and gospel are of vital importance. That was not what I was referring to, but it is of no real importance as this is my closing post in this particular thread topic and from my point of view this thread is closed and not open for further comment.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Arius had a different view.
Nestorius had a different view.
Sibelius had a different view.
Joseph Smith had a different View.
Marcion had a different view.
Charles Taze Russell had a different view.
Jim Jones had a different view.
Is it healthy that we should we peaceably tolerate those heresies? (The meaning of the word "heresy" is, essentially, "a different view.")
Or is it tolerating the poison of eternal death to those who swallow it?


You must purge the evil from among you. (DT 13:5; 17:7, 12; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21, 22, 24; 24:7)

iakov the fool

That's a tad over-the-top reply to a very good point. You have a different view than many here. It's not your job to purge what you perceive as evil from cf.net. It seems you are suggesting it is.

 

[Jim Parker]

That's a tad over-the-top reply to a very good point.

A line must be drawn somewhere.
How far off from the doctrine of the apostles do you suggest one could go and still be considered a Christian?

You have a different view than many here. It's not your job to purge what you perceive as evil from cf.net. It seems you are suggesting it is.

It may seem that to you. You are mistaken.
I'm not concerned about cf.net.
I am concerned that, where ever it arises, damning heresy be identified for what it is.
There is a whole lot of religious, Christian-like behavior being practiced by people who think they are in God's will. (Like the "prosperity gospel" and "cheap grace" and "feel-good-ism" and "lone Ranger Christianity")
It seems to me that, if I know there is a danger, I am responsible warn the person in danger in spite of the possibility of being considered impolite.

 

[Papa Zoom]

A line must be drawn somewhere.
How far off from the doctrine of the apostles do you suggest one could go and still be considered a Christian?

It may seem that to you. You are mistaken.
I'm not concerned about cf.net.
I am concerned that, where ever it arises, damning heresy be identified for what it is.
There is a whole lot of religious, Christian-like behavior being practiced by people who think they are in God's will. (Like the "prosperity gospel" and "cheap grace" and "feel-good-ism" and "lone Ranger Christianity")
It seems to me that, if I know there is a danger, I am responsible warn the person in danger in spite of the possibility of being considered impolite.

Maybe in your church or close circle. But on CF you have to abide by the rules so you should be concerned about CF.

As for being far off a doctrine: Depends on what we're discussing. You still have a responsibility to defend your beliefs with grace and love for the body. You have no choice in this. My tagline says so.

 

[Jim Parker]

Maybe in your church

There is only ONE Church.

on CF you have to abide by the rules

What rule applies to saying we need to draw a line somewhere?

As for being far off a doctrine: Depends on what we're discussing. You still have a responsibility to defend your beliefs with grace and love for the body. You have no choice in this. My tagline says so.

OK
And have I not done that?
I don't understand what you are confronting me about.

 

[Jim Parker]

Now then that is not what I was suggesting and I'm sure you know it.

Of course you haven't.
But where do we draw the line?

 

[Papa Zoom]

There is only ONE Church.

What rule applies to saying we need to draw a line somewhere?

OK
And have I not done that?
I don't understand what you are confronting me about.

yes yes, one Church. Many congregations. If everyone took the attitude that it was their job to correct others it would be quite the chaotic thing. You say this: "Actually, you do not allow any author of any commentary to take priority over your opinion of what the Bible says based on your best understanding."

Iron sharpens iron. The author of a commentary may be correct and we may hold to the wrong "opinion" of what the Bible "says." Of course, the Bible doesn't say anything. We infer meaning from the text. And there are many competing understandings when it comes to Biblical interpretation. Who is right? Some issues are easy to sort out, others are not. The person you should least trust in understanding God's word is yourself. That applies to everyone. No matter who you are or where you've studied, you come with a filter and that filter gets in the way. You took issue with this post http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/who-made-god.68553/page-19#post-1328152 and I think you went a tad far in your response. The poster was making a valid point.

 

[reba]

Arius had a different view.
Nestorius had a different view.
Sibelius had a different view.
Joseph Smith had a different View.
Marcion had a different view.
Charles Taze Russell had a different view.
Jim Jones had a different view.
Is it healthy that we should we peaceably tolerate those heresies? (The meaning of the word "heresy" is, essentially, "a different view.")
Or is it tolerating the poison of eternal death to those who swallow it?


You must purge the evil from among you. (DT 13:5; 17:7, 12; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21, 22, 24; 24:7)

iakov the fool

Jim Parker has a different view
Reba has a different view
so and so has a different view..
Jim Parker is a fallible human as are the rest of us.

 

[reba]

Any post any of us post here is a commentary.
Some of our commentaries are just plain goofy
Some i read IMO they are spot on...
The terms all members agree to are in place because Christian folks can and do have different view .. Different understandings of Scripture.
Hopefully not one of us is the same, believes exactly the same ,ETC as when we were first saved... Growing in the Lord changes us, right?
In our simple human attempt to share the Gospel with as many as possible we have the terms of service.

Address issues not personalities. Respect where people are in their spiritual walk, and respect all others in general. Respect where others are in their spiritual walk, do not disrupt the flow of discussion or act in a way that affects others negatively including when debating doctrinal issues, in the defense of the Christian faith, and in offering unwelcome spiritual advice. etc

The line at CFnet is drawn at Statement of Faith/Our Beliefs and the TOS .
All members state they have read and are willing to abide by the TOS . As the different congregations around the world are governed by different by-laws, confessions , rules what ever their title, the governing body here is the TOS . The TOS was accepted when you signed on . The privilege to post rides on abiding with in the TOS

Just to be sure there is no misunderstanding this post is a warning .

 

[OzSpen]

Not only did I read it, I made reference to it.edit oops no I didn't, I had a mind to but commented on 304 instead
You think certain things are metaphore, it seems because you read it somewhere....Mickelsen was it?
Two things about me.
1. I do not think many of those things you call metaphore are metaphore.
2. I do not allow any author of any commentary to take priority over the Bible.
So there is no point in my discussing anything with you because our faith platforms are entirely different.
You will never hear me say well the word of God is clear on this point, but Mickelsen thinks otherwise so he must be right.......(because he wrote a book??)
bye

calvin,

Mickelsen was but one example I gave where this professor of hermeneutics confirmed that literal interpretation includes figures of speech. I've learned it in my English classes from high school through to my BA degree. It's a common understanding in English grammar.

Here's another example from a Christian interpreter. Roy Zuck wrote that 'figurative language then is not antithetical to literal interpretation; it is part of it' (Zuck 1991:147).

Our faith platforms are not different, calvin, but our understanding of the discipline of hermeneutics (interpretation) is different.

By the way, metaphor is spelt metaphor and not metaphore.

Oz

Work consulted

Zuck, R B 1991. Basic Bible interpretation. Colorado Springs CO: David C. Cook

 

[Cygnus]

No you don't. The 'tree of life' uses a metaphor to refer to some kind of life. The 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil' is a metaphor to demonstrate the morality of good and evil coming into the human race.

By the way, please learn to back-quote so I know the post to which you are responding.

Oz

Which makes the fall..a metaphor and something that never happened.
Which makes Adam and Eves disobedience a simple non event....which means we don't really need Jesus.

 

[Cygnus]

You didn't respond to the content of what I wrote at #348 that you quoted. For a sensible conversation, I need you to address the topic I wrote about. Here you are off and running with what you want to say but forgot about what I wrote.

I didn't respond because there was no need to. I know what a metaphor is.

 

[Cygnus]

You are assuming that Genesis was written as a literal historic account.

No assumptions. Everytime Genesis is presented it is presented as literal and historical...when Paul refers to Genesis Paul presents it as literal and historical.

 

[Jim Parker]

You say this: "Actually, you do not allow any author of any commentary to take priority over your opinion of what the Bible says based on your best understanding."

I also said, "That's what everyone does."
And that was my point. We all do it.

And there are many competing understandings when it comes to Biblical interpretation. Who is right?

I have repeatedly suggested that the best commentators are those who were closest to the actual events,l the early church fathers.
They are the ones who zealously preserved the teaching of the apostles and, by doing so, were able to refute the multiple early heresies which arose. They are the ones who defined the basics of Christianity in the creeds.

iakov the fool