Well, THAT’S frickin’ obvious! I don’t think you can explain C. A. T. Where the Bible is concerned.
Teachers who don’t know their subjects aren’t teachers. You know who produced Strong’s Concordance you put so much stock in?
Scholars. You know who translated the Bible from ancient languages?
Scholars. You know for whom these
scholars worked?
“Christendom.” Yet you thumb your nose at both. In-frickin’-credible!
the ancient Apostles had no need, because they weren’t translating ancient texts in foreign languages, and they weren’t living in a foreign culture. And they had memorized the Hebrew texts, along with every other good Jewish boy of the period. Apostles of more modern ages
do attend seminaries and learn how to exegete, because it’s
necessary, in order for them to understand ancient and foreign texts.
Because there was no bible as yet.
If one practices one’s mistakes, one will learn only one’s mistakes. Not being a scholar and trying to ‘teach the Bible” is a mistake. To quote a great “bible teacher,” “40 years ‘teaching’ the Bible without scholarship is your hang up, not mine.”
Your posts are all assumption, no substance. you aren’t aware of my denomination, so you assume facts not in evidence. It’s obvious that you got nothin’, because now you’re resorting to cheap-shot
ad hominem attacks that are based in complete fantasy. You should be Trump’s press secretary. Good job, “Bible Teacher,” for imparting this “knowledge” that isn’t “hung up” on doing actual, honest
research.
Why would you want to teach something that you haven’t studied? You can’t argue effectively against something you know nothing about. (They teach this sort of useful hermeneutic at Scholar Camp — but you’re not interested, apparently in effective argument.)
Bully for you. That’s not cogent to the argument.
So you admit you’ve made a major departure from the monotheism of Judaism and the monotheism of Jesus, and the monotheism of the first Apostles. You admit that you are not minding the Bible’s directive to “continue in the Apostles’ teaching.” you admit that you are
not part of the church that stems from the Apostles. Now we’re getting somewhere. Something is rotten in Denmark, and it ain’t Christendom or the RCC.
yeah, that appellation (that’s a “scholar’s word” that means “name” — but you wouldn’t know that, because scholarship’s not your “hang up”) is given to us in Luke’s genealogy, which every
scholar knows isn’t a literal genealogy, but a
theological (that’s an “industry term” that means “talking about God” — but you probably don’t care, because scholarship’s not your “hang up”) statement, connecting Jesus with ... wait for it ...
God! And if you knew anything about ancient Judaic culture (which you don’t, because you dismiss scholarship) you’d know that family and community are the basic units of identity. To connect Jesus to God in a familial sense is to equate Jesus with God — the “God-
family” — the Trinity.
See above. You can’t effectively argue against something you don’t understand. What you’re outlining patently Is. Not. The. Doctrine. Of. The. Trinity.
Well, you’ve concocted a situation in which you’re not teaching the Bible, but the man-made doctrines of your polytheistic cult.
The timeless wisdom of not-scholarship: “The Bible needs no interpretation, my Palawan Learner. Scholarship and interpretation: the Dark Side are these...”
You are expecting Jesus’ followers to be perfect when you misinterpret the “narrow gate” passage the way you do. Not-scholarship breeds inconsistent theology, which is what you’re “imparting” here.
“Looking this way and that and seeing no one, he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.”. “Manslaughter” isn’t mentioned. But from the actual context, “looking this way and that and seeing no one...” indicates premeditation. That’s not “manslaughter,” that’s
murder.
So, O Great Teacher of the Bible for 40 Years and Follower of the
@Real Jesus™, do you think Jesus approves of premeditated “manslaughter” for beating someone up? Do you think Moses thought he was guilty of a crime by hiding the body and running away? Or is this text “obvious” and “not in need of interpretation?”
Moses committed a crime.
You’re making excuses. David committed sin.
According to Judaic Law, yes. He was also guilty of insurrection, under Roman law. That’s why he was subject to state execution.
Well, you’ve finally admitted it: “
I don’t know.” You
don’t know. That’s been obvious. The context shows that membership is inclusive. Thieves, prostitutes, money-changers — all sorts of social and ethical riff-raff get in.
Sure! It’s really not difficult to just spout stuff off that has no theological or factual basis and call it “teaching the Bible for 40 years.”
I’m sure you would. Your posts make it clear that you’re into excluding people. You apparently teach that the “Kristian Klub” is exclusively for those who only have to believe certain man-made doctrines about Jesus. It’s an invention of your cult.
In the first century, there certainly
were clergy/laity differences. There was a difference between who was an Apostle and who was not. They had specific titles for people who were called to specific ministries:
episkopos, diakonos, presbyteros. All you gotta do is read the Bible — no interpretation needed.
Again, if you knew the subject you were arguing against, you wouldn’t look foolish. Clergy aren’t “paid to do God’s work.” That’s not the way it works. At all. Clergy are given a
stipend (not a salary for “work done”) so they don’t have to work, so they
can be available for ministry all the time. It’s an
ecclesiastical (that’s a “scholar-word” that means “churchy” — but you’re possibly unaware, because scholarship isn’t your “thang”) concept, meaning that the assembly calls some to specific ministries, and takes care of their support for not working at a job, because they’re too busy doing ministry for the assembly.
Scholarship, my dear, minimizes silly mistakes. Like not knowing what “pericope” means.
when did I ever mention “transubstantiation?” There you go, making assumptions and implying what’s clearly not there. “Real presence” isn’t “transubstantiation.” I won’t go into the fact that “memorial emblems” isn’t mentioned in the Gospels, but “this is my body...”
is. I won’t go into the theological (that’s that “scholar-word” you don’t care about again) reasons why it’s not “cannibalism.” making that argument is nothing more than hyperbole. I
would take the time to explain what “real presence” means, and why it’s different from transubstantiation, if I thought for one minute that you’d actually heed the information and not dismiss/ridicule it offhand. A
good teacher takes time to learn new information. But that’s not in your wheelhouse, based on what you’ve posted thus far.
Completely dismissing all the passages where God is full of lovingkindness, merciful to all, not punishing as we deserve, loving the whole world, making provisions for welcoming the stranger, caring for the outsider, including the outcast. You probably don’t care why God destroyed Sodom, but it was because
they weren’t hospitable. Jesus called God “Daddy.” Somehow, that doesn’t connote waking up with a severed horse’s head next to him in bed, because “Father” was the “angry mob-boss” of the spiritual realms.
The whole “God is angry” motif is theologically untenable.
How little you understand the theology. How apparent it is that your dismissal of biblical scholarship is hobbling your efforts to “teach.” It’s not particularly a “barrier of sin.” It’s primarily a barrier of
difference.
