How about a Bible Study Forum?

[Willie-T]

Okay. You're probably right. There's a lot of parroting going on. Bible study ought to include some certainties, as in: This is definite, this is what the passage means. But then also open discussion ought to be allowed.

I don't know, but I suspect many churches are bound to teach their denominations beliefs in bible studies. I don't know if there's any room for discussion in bible study for certain doctrines.

But I see what you mean. Appreciate the clarification. And agree.

Yes, but then it really DOES have to resort to being a variety of Bible Studies that reflect how different groups of people see things

For instance, I see no "Rapture" (as most people see it, a rescue "escape pod") in the Bible. And I could probably write a fairly large book showing my reasons...... as could proponents of "The Rapture", from their esoteric points of view. How ya gonna develop a Bible Study from that mix?

You aren't . You have to get rid of me, and those that belivee like me have to dismiss you guys.

And this is only one example out of scores.... perhaps, hundreds.

 

[atwhatcost]

That would be good but it still leads to other issues as depending on what church and denomination we belong to depends on how you were told to study the word.

For instance in the original Greek words have multiple meanings and multiple usages, yet some have been taught to use just one and one alone. Then you also have newer study guides that have added to or changed the meanings of the original Greek words, such as diakonos (deacon) that is being discussed in another thread. The original meaning is a ordained minister/servant, yet now day study guides have expanded that role and/or just made it say just servant.

Some friends and I started a Bible Study together. We had one thing in common -- no idea there were bible study aids available that could help us. But, since we didn't know we'd go verse b verse, everyone saying what they thought it meant, ad then asking how that works, if we saw a problem. Usually when we were finished, we all agreed on what it meant in context. Since our backgrounds were vague, (if we grew up in churches they were never the type to suss out the Bible, so we got that be nice to each other sermons), we really did start from nothing.

That worked.

I've also been in Bible Studies where two polyglots got into the original language debates, while the rest of us listened. By the time they were done, there was agreement. Really weird how often there is agreement when everyone is truly open to what it really says. No doctorates required, but, hey bring one in, and we'd debate what he knows too. lol

I want to debate it out. Now I got my Dead Guys to study, but I don't always agree with them either. Bring it on. There's no rush.

 

[atwhatcost]

Maybe I need more sleep (my husband says I walk around in a sleep deprived state most of the time haha) but with regards to the bolded above, the thought flashed through my mind, that some of us use English the same way.

OK, well I thought that was funny anyway........

Say what? lol

Reminds me of an old joke.

The English professor was saying that double negatives in a sentence produce a positive. But two positives in a sentence can never be a negative. From the back of the class, someone shouted, "Yeah, right."

 

[Galahad]

What Is JP heresy?

 

[Galahad]

I went to Abbreviations site. Number of possible abbreviations 111 (reminds me a bit of 666!). Is it: Judas Priest (Judas Iscariot and Priest both in bible.), John Paul, Jet Propulsion, Jamaica Plain, Just Pass, Just Perfect.

I suspect it's it the last one. Just Perfect heresy. Anyone know?

Hopefully it's not Judas Priest heresy. Wasn't that Ozzy's group?

 

[Willie-T]

I went to Abbreviations site. Number of possible abbreviations 111 (reminds me a bit of 666!). Is it: Judas Priest (Judas Iscariot and Priest both in bible.), John Paul, Jet Propulsion, Jamaica Plain, Just Pass, Just Perfect.

I suspect it's it the last one. Just Perfect heresy. Anyone know?

Hopefully it's not Judas Priest heresy. Wasn't that Ozzy's group?

No, it is the typical slam against grace preachers, like Paul received all the time. In this case, Joseph Prince.

 

[Willie-T]

Some friends and I started a Bible Study together. We had one thing in common -- no idea there were bible study aids available that could help us. But, since we didn't know we'd go verse b verse, everyone saying what they thought it meant, ad then asking how that works, if we saw a problem. Usually when we were finished, we all agreed on what it meant in context. Since our backgrounds were vague, (if we grew up in churches they were never the type to suss out the Bible, so we got that be nice to each other sermons), we really did start from nothing.

That worked.

I've also been in Bible Studies where two polyglots got into the original language debates, while the rest of us listened. By the time they were done, there was agreement. Really weird how often there is agreement when everyone is truly open to what it really says. No doctorates required, but, hey bring one in, and we'd debate what he knows too. lol

I want to debate it out. Now I got my Dead Guys to study, but I don't always agree with them either. Bring it on. There's no rush.

Could you do that today? Could ANY of us, since we now think we know something, and aren't just clean slates?

 

[Galahad]

Could you do that today? Could ANY of us, since we now think we know something, and aren't just clean slates?

Okay. As the original post with JP was addressed to you Willie, are you in some particular agreement on some bible topic with Joseph that is of widespread controversy? The post was "JP heresy." What is that exactly?

Concerning JP, I see him and Osteen, for example, engaged or directed in part by self-serving interests. Consider Osteen. The man refuses to preach truth. In fact, he doesn't call himself a preacher. He's more of a life coach. His goal is not to reprove, rebuke, and exhort believers. His shameful response to the question of salvation, "many ways lead to God" proves as much. If that's not the actual statement, I'll not quibble about it. But the fact that he refused in a public setting to quote the explicit statement of the Lord, "No man comes to the Father but by Me," proves his interest is not truth. What is it? I have my opinion. Other folks will have to watch Osteen for a couple of weeks and then compare his teaching to that of the bible.

Can you imagine an Osteen on day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Seriously.

"Friends. Don't let mistakes and set backs get you down. Stand up. Move forward. Don't look back. You may have made a big mistake in your life. I mean a whopper. (As in, "You have taken and crucified and slain Jesus of Nazareth." Acts 2:23.) You know, there was a man who just couldn't hold a job....one day he decided to forget the past. Today, he runs a multibillion dollar company. You can too. But you got to look ahead."

Is JP to that extreme? I don't think so. He does present lessons with strings of verses. But again, not much there to convict. I don't mean purposely drive a nail into folks. But certainly in this day and time you would think bible teachers with a wide audience would present timely lessons. Millions watch their shows. Preach the word. Don't scratch itching ears. Remember Elijah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist.

How, with so many mega churches, with so many Catholics, with so many protestants, has our country become what it is today?

The Sunday morning cotton candy speeches and Broadway shows may have something to do with it.

 

[Willie-T]

Okay. As the original post with JP was addressed to you Willie, are you in some particular agreement on some bible topic with Joseph that is of widespread controversy?

.

Yes, "grace."

 

[Galahad]

Yes, "grace."

Okay. Grace. Where and to what degree God is gracious with me is my concern. I thank God for His grace and mercy. I seek or rely daily on His grace. That's part of living a life that seeks to follow in the steps of Jesus. I fall. I fail. I am forgiven. I follow.

If He's not gracious, He's not forgiving.

Don't know all the controversy. Don't know JP's teaching on grace.

The bible is clear, however, grace is essential to salvation.

 

[Willie-T]

Okay. Grace. Where and to what degree God is gracious with me is my concern. I thank God for His grace and mercy. I seek or rely daily on His grace. That's part of living a life that seeks to follow in the steps of Jesus. I fall. I fail. I am forgiven. I follow.

If He's not gracious, He's not forgiving.

Don't know all the controversy. Don't know JP's teaching on grace.

The bible is clear, however, grace is essential to salvation.

From what I can gather from these people, what you just said would be heresy to them.

 

[atwhatcost]

So, what do you do when everyone starts discussing determining the time of the "Rapture"? (Since you hold the same "opinion" that I do.)

Make it a real Bible Study and, unless the book is Revelation, I can squelch that conversation in 1-2 posts. (Might take longer in Rev, but then again, someone more knowledgeable than I am can, quite possibly, convince me I'm wrong. I really am in this to learn, because I really want to study the Bible as The Bible, not as pet prove-a-point. If I knew everything, there's no longer a reason to study, right?)

 

[atwhatcost]

I nominate Old Hermit as a teacher. He shows great respect for what is said. I've read his material on Hebrews. It's a bit detailed, too much in some areas (I understand why) but what I like is his breakdown of the words and phrases to get to the meaning. Again, I believe he respects what is written. That's a big plus. He stays with the text.

I think Old Hermit is particularly good because he's particular on what he studies. He knows Hebrews because he's been studying it and teaching it since I was Ronald Reagan was President. Even he says he's not so good with Romans. (That is so hard for me to believe. It just feels like he knows everything. lol) Because of that, I suspect many of us have particular places we like to study often, so it doesn't, and shouldn't land on his shoulders always.

 

[Willie-T]

Make it a real Bible Study and, unless the book is Revelation, I can squelch that conversation in 1-2 posts. (Might take longer in Rev, but then again, someone more knowledgeable than I am can, quite possibly, convince me I'm wrong. I really am in this to learn, because I really want to study the Bible as The Bible, not as pet prove-a-point. If I knew everything, there's no longer a reason to study, right?)

That's my point. You are not coming to a mutual agreement if you "squelch" someone else. You just shout loud enough that they let you think you are having your way.

 

[atwhatcost]

Then it wouldnt be for you. You dont want anyone but YOU to lead. That is the real issue here isnt it? Start your own bible study with all your WOF buddies. You can have it all to your own liking with JP heresy and all! Problem solved!!

Hey now! Since when is stating past annoyances a sin? Willie is perfectly allowed to complain about an old "bible study" he had the misfortune to attend without being thrown under the bus for assumptions of what he does and doesn't want?

"Bible Study." I really don't care if the participants included WoF, RCC, Methodists, Calvinists, Holy Rollers, Pentecostals, and New Age. Accept whoever wants to join, just as long as they are there for one thing -- to study that book together with others. "Study." The assumption is learn something new, and maybe, just maybe, it goes with what you knew before, or it could be new to you.

If we go all "that person can't join," that isn't studying. That's validating Willie's complaint -- you have to agree to join. There is one prerequisite -- the desire to study.

 

[atwhatcost]

Okay. You're probably right. There's a lot of parroting going on. Bible study ought to include some certainties, as in: This is definite, this is what the passage means. But then also open discussion ought to be allowed.

I don't know, but I suspect many churches are bound to teach their denominations beliefs in bible studies. I don't know if there's any room for discussion in bible study for certain doctrines.

But I see what you mean. Appreciate the clarification. And agree.

I disagree. I'm talking equal footing Bible Study. No teacher, unless someone volunteers and others agree. BUT if you have a point, come prepared to prove it biblically, not denominationally.

 

[atwhatcost]

Yes, but then it really DOES have to resort to being a variety of Bible Studies that reflect how different groups of people see things

For instance, I see no "Rapture" (as most people see it, a rescue "escape pod") in the Bible. And I could probably write a fairly large book showing my reasons...... as could proponents of "The Rapture", from their esoteric points of view. How ya gonna develop a Bible Study from that mix?

You aren't . You have to get rid of me, and those that belivee like me have to dismiss you guys.

And this is only one example out of scores.... perhaps, hundreds.

Rapture isn't a book in the Bible. I'm talking real Bible study. Not prove-a-pointism. Pick a book, any book, but the study is about that book. Rather the reason I would like a Bible Study, to truly study the Bible. If it's prove-a-point, well, we already have a Bible Discussion forum, right?

 

[atwhatcost]

Could you do that today? Could ANY of us, since we now think we know something, and aren't just clean slates?

My cup is not full. It's also not quite as dry as it was back then. There is a lot of room to add more to it. That's why I'd like to do this. I'm not alone. The only people who would be alone are the ones with full cups. (Please tell me you have seen Avatar to catch that reference. lol)

 

[atwhatcost]

That's my point. You are not coming to a mutual agreement if you "squelch" someone else. You just shout loud enough that they let you think you are having your way.

I sure am, if I'm able to squelch. If I'm not, then someone is convincing me of something different. This is what I want -- to learn. But I know the theories behind rapture, and darn if you haven't already seen me squelch them. That history I gave? What happened to the guy in the field? How the sun was blotted out. Where the river of blood was and why? I know where people turn that stuff into Rapture related, but it's not. So I can squelch with facts. Prove my facts re wrong, and they stop being facts. I want heated debates. I want deep insight. The only restriction is it has to be connected to understanding specific scripture in the book being studied. Don't make me prove what happened to the two guys in the field, if we're studying Joshua, because those two guys don't count in a study of Joshua. Studying a book, not a theory. And, yes, study it with what everyone can bring to the table. And if one person brings junk learned, let the others prove why it is junk. That's why I'm fine with New Agers coming to the table. Lots of funky beliefs in New Age, but it won't hold up in the Bible. Isn't that what we're trying to learn from the Bible? What it really says vs. whatever whoever taught us about it?

 

[atwhatcost]

What Is JP heresy?

JP is my hubby's initials. He's not a heresy. He's my hubby.

(Ha! I know so much about heresies, don't I? lol)