Christianity made simple.

[Gideon300]

As soon as you proclaim that theological degrees are good as long as it comes from a Bible believing institution you seem to be implying that there are such degree granting institutions that are not "God believing", and that raises the question of, how do you distinguish? Do only Conservative-Evangelical ones meet this criteria or do more middle of the road or even liberal ones also eligible. What about a Conservative-Evangelical school that embraces academic honesty, that is sound arguments over doctrinal purity?

Among academics there are many currently unanswerable questions about what the Bible means in places, so which institutions are teaching the "proper" understandings of these, or is merely recognizing that these problems exist sufficient.

And given the widespread recognition of the existence of such problems, must we stay with traditional approaches or would an approach that eliminates these issues, but at a cost of redirecting and redefining how we express our faith be an improvement?

Either the Bible is God's word or it is not. Too many institutions start of with the premise that it is the product of fallible men. Many relegate the first 11 chapters of Genesis to the realm of myth.

The problem is not God's word. It is that the Bible is a spiritual book for spiritual people. For example, many doubted that the account of the destruction of Jericho is accurate. The it was discovered and exactly as the Bible describes it. Then they had to find a natural explanation for the collapse of the walls.

The account states that Israel marched around Jericho for a week. I don't know how many men there were, but I know something about marching. When crossing a bridge constructed of stone, such as is common in England, the marchers had to "break step". So they waled across. Many stamping feet was enough to cause the bridge to collapse. It is not impossible for the shock from the armed men to undermine the walls such that they collapsed. If it was an earthquake, as some suggest, that's astounding for it's perfect timing.

If we do not understand something that does not make it untrue. Adam and Eve were real people, so much so that Jesus is called the "last Adam".

Faith is in effect spiritual eyesight. We see the physical with the physical eye, the mind also has understanding which is the mind's eye, and the spirit of man has the eye of faith. Reading the Bible from an intellectual point of view leads to doubt and unbelief.

 

[GWH]

Either the Bible is God's word or it is not. Too many institutions start of with the premise that it is the product of fallible men. Many relegate the first 11 chapters of Genesis to the realm of myth.

The problem is not God's word. It is that the Bible is a spiritual book for spiritual people. For example, many doubted that the account of the destruction of Jericho is accurate. The it was discovered and exactly as the Bible describes it. Then they had to find a natural explanation for the collapse of the walls.

The account states that Israel marched around Jericho for a week. I don't know how many men there were, but I know something about marching. When crossing a bridge constructed of stone, such as is common in England, the marchers had to "break step". So they waled across. Many stamping feet was enough to cause the bridge to collapse. It is not impossible for the shock from the armed men to undermine the walls such that they collapsed. If it was an earthquake, as some suggest, that's astounding for it's perfect timing.

If we do not understand something that does not make it untrue. Adam and Eve were real people, so much so that Jesus is called the "last Adam".

Faith is in effect spiritual eyesight. We see the physical with the physical eye, the mind also has understanding which is the mind's eye, and the spirit of man has the eye of faith. Reading the Bible from an intellectual point of view leads to doubt and unbelief.

Actually, the canonization of the Bible was a process akin to making sausage, so each part should be deemed inspired Scripture
or not on its own merits (1Thes. 5:20-21). For example, Mark 16:18 does not jibe with the rest of Scripture.

 

[rewriter]

Pet your dog for me. I like dogs hand have a good back yard for a dog, but I do not want to own one until I stop travelling.
I already cited verses indicating the source of Jesus' knowledge was God the Father (John 5:37, 6:45, 8:26-28, etc.), NOT rabbis
(Luke 2:41-52).

I learned about Joe in seminary, but at this point I hope you will quote relevant statements here, because I remember
that he referred to Jesus as Christ but not to Jesus as having been trained by rabbis. Perhaps you are remembering Acts 22:3,
where Paul is described as having studied under Gamaliel and being thoroughly trained in the law?

Nope, I am reacting to what Joe said about James, the brother of Jesus. Reportedly James had knees hardened like a camel's from praying for the people in the Holy of Holies. But he could only do that if he was a high priest. Now there appears to have been two high priests during the time period, one official and one unofficial, so it is possible that James was the unofficial one. But that also makes Jesus of a priestly line and thus making full Rabbinic training available, even if only from within His own family. Then it would not take much assistance from God for Him to surpass His contemporaries in knowledge.

Now if you look at the story of Izates, in Antiquities 20 or 21 if I remember correctly, Izates seems to be presented as an alternative messiah who died before the Jewish rebellion, thus disconnecting the rebellion from messianic expectations and potentially taking some pressure off Christianity. Josephus seems to have been unofficially sympathetic towards Christians.

I might note that Eusebius also makes comments that suggest James as an unofficial high priest.

 

[rewriter]

Either the Bible is God's word or it is not. Too many institutions start of with the premise that it is the product of fallible men. Many relegate the first 11 chapters of Genesis to the realm of myth.

The problem is not God's word. It is that the Bible is a spiritual book for spiritual people. For example, many doubted that the account of the destruction of Jericho is accurate. The it was discovered and exactly as the Bible describes it. Then they had to find a natural explanation for the collapse of the walls.

The account states that Israel marched around Jericho for a week. I don't know how many men there were, but I know something about marching. When crossing a bridge constructed of stone, such as is common in England, the marchers had to "break step". So they waled across. Many stamping feet was enough to cause the bridge to collapse. It is not impossible for the shock from the armed men to undermine the walls such that they collapsed. If it was an earthquake, as some suggest, that's astounding for it's perfect timing.

If we do not understand something that does not make it untrue. Adam and Eve were real people, so much so that Jesus is called the "last Adam".

Faith is in effect spiritual eyesight. We see the physical with the physical eye, the mind also has understanding which is the mind's eye, and the spirit of man has the eye of faith. Reading the Bible from an intellectual point of view leads to doubt and unbelief.

Scripture is not God's word Jesus is God's word. Scripture tells us about Jesus and contains accurate information about God and sometimes words directly from God (the Lord says, or comparable phrasing), but it is not a person like God's word is.

Placing too much emphasis on scripture can lead to bibliolatry, elevating the Bible to the level of God in violation of the 1st Commandment.

 

[GWH]

Nope, I am reacting to what Joe said about James, the brother of Jesus. Reportedly James had knees hardened like a camel's from praying for the people in the Holy of Holies. But he could only do that if he was a high priest. Now there appears to have been two high priests during the time period, one official and one unofficial, so it is possible that James was the unofficial one. But that also makes Jesus of a priestly line and thus making full Rabbinic training available, even if only from within His own family. Then it would not take much assistance from God for Him to surpass His contemporaries in knowledge.

Now if you look at the story of Izates, in Antiquities 20 or 21 if I remember correctly, Izates seems to be presented as an alternative messiah who died before the Jewish rebellion, thus disconnecting the rebellion from messianic expectations and potentially taking some pressure off Christianity. Josephus seems to have been unofficially sympathetic towards Christians.

I might note that Eusebius also makes comments that suggest James as an unofficial high priest.

Well, thanks for the info, but all of that speculation is too vague for warranting belief contradicting
what the Scriptures I cited indicate: the source of Jesus' knowledge was God the Father (John 5:37, 6:45, 8:26-28, etc.),
NOT rabbis (Luke 2:41-52), so I will not amend my understanding of them. Which view do you believe?

 

[rewriter]

Well, thanks for the info, but all of that speculation is too vague for warranting belief contradicting
what the Scriptures I cited indicate: the source of Jesus' knowledge was God the Father (John 5:37, 6:45, 8:26-28, etc.),
NOT rabbis (Luke 2:41-52), so I will not amend my understanding of them. Which view do you believe?

I believe that Jesus got a fair amount of instruction from humans. He could read and speak the language I doubt God taught Him that. He likely got lots of other religious education from just growing up in a family of faith and attending synagogues as a youth. Now how much God added to that is pure speculation, but humans were undoubtably involved in His learning.

 

[GWH]

I believe that Jesus got a fair amount of instruction from humans. He could read and speak the language I doubt God taught Him that. He likely got lots of other religious education from just growing up in a family of faith and attending synagogues as a youth. Now how much God added to that is pure speculation, but humans were undoubtably involved in His learning.

Well, beyond Scripture (John 5:37, 6:45, 8:26-28, etc. and Luke 2:41-52) what Jesus learned from family and rabbis is pure speculation,
but you do prompt the question regarding whether Jesus could speak in every earthly tongue.

 

[rewriter]

Well, beyond Scripture (John 5:37, 6:45, 8:26-28, etc. and Luke 2:41-52) what Jesus learned from family and rabbis is pure speculation,
but you do prompt the question regarding whether Jesus could speak in every earthly tongue.

If Jesus was fully human and experienced everything we humans experience, He had to learn to speak and as an infant cried and babbled. He would not have been capable of telling in Mary in either Aramaic, Greek or Hebrew that he needed his diaper changed or that He was hungry. At first, He simply cried from discomfort, then learned to make sounds that Mary recognized as having meaning and gradually learned how to use normal speech. As for what languages Jesus knew, the gospels clearly indicate that he knew both Aramaic and Hebrew. Knowing Greek was probable, but Latin or any other language becomes doubtful to my mind.

 

[Gideon300]

Scripture is not God's word Jesus is God's word. Scripture tells us about Jesus and contains accurate information about God and sometimes words directly from God (the Lord says, or comparable phrasing), but it is not a person like God's word is.

Placing too much emphasis on scripture can lead to bibliolatry, elevating the Bible to the level of God in violation of the 1st Commandment.

True, but irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Gideon300]

If Jesus was fully human and experienced everything we humans experience, He had to learn to speak and as an infant cried and babbled. He would not have been capable of telling in Mary in either Aramaic, Greek or Hebrew that he needed his diaper changed or that He was hungry. At first, He simply cried from discomfort, then learned to make sounds that Mary recognized as having meaning and gradually learned how to use normal speech. As for what languages Jesus knew, the gospels clearly indicate that he knew both Aramaic and Hebrew. Knowing Greek was probable, but Latin or any other language becomes doubtful to my mind.

Greek was pretty much the common language of the time, much like English is now. I also have no doubt that Jesus could interpret and speak any language He wanted. After all, the disciples spoke different languages on the day of Pentecost. Jesus the Man received the Holy Spirit when He was baptised by John.

 

[TruthDefender]

I just got a new thought, God's "Requirement" for Salvation
Requirement = you better or else, if you do not I will kill you, sent you to the lake of fire. I do. not see my Father as a tyrant ever.
God is true Compassionate love and mercy to all and for all. Jesus did not return risen and kill those that got him killed as in Col 2. Love and mercy is to be received and given to all.
Religion has made it a requirement =, no wonder people are leaving religions, leaving people being lords over people
God frees to love to all in mercy and truth to all. Its a chloice, required leaves no choice to choose

Thank you as we each learn from one another and agree to disagree or not, thanks

God is love, but He will also come back to take vengeance on the wicked and on those who did not choose Him.

 

[TruthDefender]

True, but irrelevant to the discussion.

I disagree!

Scripture is not God's word Jesus is God's word. Scripture tells us about Jesus and contains accurate information about God and sometimes words directly from God (the Lord says, or comparable phrasing), but it is not a person like God's word is.

Placing too much emphasis on scripture can lead to bibliolatry, elevating the Bible to the level of God in violation of the 1st Commandment.

Scripture is God breathed, which means it is not man-made, therefore it is the word of God, written through man.

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,”
‭‭II Timothy‬ ‭3‬:‭16‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[TruthDefender]

I believe that Jesus got a fair amount of instruction from humans. He could read and speak the language I doubt God taught Him that. He likely got lots of other religious education from just growing up in a family of faith and attending synagogues as a youth. Now how much God added to that is pure speculation, but humans were undoubtably involved in His learning.

He grew up poor. Mary and Joseph had other sons and daughters too.

I believe His dad taught Him many things, but it seemed God the Father gave Him a good amount of wisdom and knowledge too; judging from what the Rabbis said when He was 12.

Also, after being baptized, and after being tempted in the wilderness for 40 days and nights, the angels ministered to Him.

 

[GWH]

If Jesus was fully human and experienced everything we humans experience, He had to learn to speak and as an infant cried and babbled. He would not have been capable of telling in Mary in either Aramaic, Greek or Hebrew that he needed his diaper changed or that He was hungry. At first, He simply cried from discomfort, then learned to make sounds that Mary recognized as having meaning and gradually learned how to use normal speech. As for what languages Jesus knew, the gospels clearly indicate that he knew both Aramaic and Hebrew. Knowing Greek was probable, but Latin or any other language becomes doubtful to my mind.

So, as an infant Jesus had the gift of babbling?
Yes, when our kids cried, we went down the list you cited:
1. hungry,
2. tired,
3. bored,
4. wet or pooped,
5. colicky, needing burping.

We know that while incarnate Jesus did not have unlimited knowledge, such as when the Judgment/Second Coming would be.
So, I agree with TD in the previous post: Jesus learned some things as we all do, but He knew other things because of being the Son of God.

I just now have this insight: Jesus may have learned the OT from rabbis because of being human, but He knew how to harmonize GW (the OT with the Gospel/NT) because of being divine.

 

[rewriter]

He grew up poor. Mary and Joseph had other sons and daughters too.

Might I inquire as to where you got this tidbit of information? Joseph, his father, is referred to as a "techne" or a skilled worker in a world where most are unskilled workers. That would make him solidly middle class if not lower upper class. That would not be poor.

 

[homwardbound]

Jesus was referred to as "Rabbi" even by His opponents. That title implies formal training, aka seminary. You are citing silence on where Jesus got His education but ignoring that others recognized that He received such. You might also note that in the OT there are priests from the tribe of Judah and Josephus implies that both Jesus and James were Levitical.

There is worldly of the flesh and blood
There is heavenly atom Father God above, whom Jesus only listened to. Yes seen as better than the Pharisees. Jesus healed, Pharisees rebuked Jesus. People were only looking for Jesus not the Pharisees anymore
So what Got Jesus killed? "Job security" of there Pharisees
Seeing Luke 16 about the steward, was rat about the Pharisees, maybe. Only Godf knows and as I said, Jesus gathered all unto himself without his els in the way, Father led.
No world seminary from any other people. However we all are free to believe as we believe, thank you have a blessed life here on earth in trust to Father who sincerely loves you and everyone else too, proven in risen Son Jesus for all

 

[TruthDefender]

Might I inquire as to where you got this tidbit of information? Joseph, his father, is referred to as a "techne" or a skilled worker in a world where most are unskilled workers. That would make him solidly middle class if not lower upper class. That would not be poor.

It’s a deduction based on Scripture:

—-If He were middle class with money, then He probably would’ve been schooled. God gave Him wisdom and knowledge even as a child.

* "Now about the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught. And the Jews marveled, saying, "How does this Man know letters, having never studied?"
Jesus answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority."
John 7:14-17 NKJV

—-If He grew up well off, then He would have money for His ministry; some women provided for Him.

-"and certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities—Mary called Magdalene, out of whom had come seven demons, and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others who provided for Him from their substance."
Luke 8:2-3 NKJV

—-God gave Him wisdom and understanding:

-"And the Child grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him. And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast. Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers."
Luke 2:40, 42, 46-47 NKJV

 

[homwardbound]

God is love, but He will also come back to take vengeance on the wicked and on those who did not choose Him.

Which is on each person individually. I think God says this in Ezekiel 19 might be before that. God is not the culprit ever
Has reached out in love, mercy and Truth since day one.Then sent Son to take it all on and makes each as if never sinned.
Best for me at least to respond in the same love mercy and truth to all John 13:34

turns out it is Ezekiel 18 much depth in trust to be able to do it right and not be left behind

God will righteously do as God knows the truth and who is who, what is what, no matter how any other one acts
Romans 8 states those truths too, thank you

 

[rewriter]

It’s a deduction based on Scripture:

—-If He were middle class with money, then He probably would’ve been schooled. God gave Him wisdom and knowledge even as a child.

* "Now about the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught. And the Jews marveled, saying, "How does this Man know letters, having never studied?"
Jesus answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority."
John 7:14-17 NKJV

—-If He grew up well off, then He would have money for His ministry; some women provided for Him.

-"and certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities—Mary called Magdalene, out of whom had come seven demons, and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others who provided for Him from their substance."
Luke 8:2-3 NKJV

—-God gave Him wisdom and understanding:

-"And the Child grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him. And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast. Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers."
Luke 2:40, 42, 46-47 NKJV

Having teachers is not the same as having insight. Nothing in scripture denies Jesus as having had teachers, just that he, at age 12, had not had the formal training which would be unlikely at age 12, no matter how wealthy. Billionair's children do not get into Harvard or MIT at age 12 unless they are very unusual, so one would not expect them to have that kind of knowledge.

That other people contributed to Jesus's ministry likewise says nothing. You are assuming that if his family had money that Jesus would rely on it, yet Jesus taught that one should give away surplus, so to be consistent, He would have dispensed of His excess wewalth and then need others to support Him.

You are letting your assumptions dictate your responses rather than thinking things through. Scripture does not tell us the full facts, but it does give some hints. Ignoring those hints because it does not fit with what you want is not helpful to anyone.

 

[homwardbound]

I am sorry your name fits you rewriter
God just loves us all, otherwise Son would not have gone to that cross at all willingly, you think, I know God loves us all
Thank you Father and Son as Won for usb all to choose to rely 100% on you
Thank you