Romans 13:1 issues #9
The true Christians is not struggling to follow the Commandment of what says in the ff. verses.
1Peter 2:13-14
"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme ; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well"
Romans 13:1
" Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God : the powers that be are ordained of God"
rather we follow this additional commandment...
1 timothy 2:1-2
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
Now the Question is Who are this Authorities mention by the Two great disciples of Christ.
The answer is in the Context.
The True Christian is Obliged to be subject in Human Ordinances for the sake of the Lord according to Peter, but to the Authority which also according to Peter are...
....."for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.".... meaning to the Authority that is not a corrupt, an Authority that is doing Good and Justice and Fairness as well to all. No Discrimination Attitude.
But if the Authority is like what Luke say in his Letter in "Acts 5:29 KJV
"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said , We ought to obey God rather than men. "
Then the Christian Choose to follow God first than to follow ordinances of Men which is Corrupted, like Hitler Ordinances.
If you are living on those days in the time of Hitler are you comfortable to kill the Jews, if you want to follow Christ?
Therefore not all authority in the World are Instituted by God but by his no. 1 Enemy...Satan who is the Mastermind of killing the Jews. Because the power of Hitler is not of God but of Satan.
Now Why Paul say this.... "For there is no power but of God...."
to be cont......................
Thumbs up from:
The Old Path
Im sorry to say this that the conclusion you understand in Gal:2:11-21 is incorrect. Paul condemned Peter at that time because he ate with Gentiles not according to the Gospel and Peter didn't argue with Paul at that time, here is the context "he (Peter ) drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision." There is no such thing that Peter fight back. And That Debate epic between Peter and Paul is not from the Context of the Letters. I am sorry to tell this also that Jerome and and other Persons you mention is not the really Authors of the Bible. I have to decline their Authorship. Pasensya na. (in tagalog ), I am so sorry with that statement. So 2 Peter is still part of the Bible. Its not Peter that really convince Paul but Christ Himself. And Its not Peter at all that is why Christianity established, Its Christ Himself with the help of his Father. The Apostles is just an Instrument.
Maybe you are not aware of what you are saying in Malachi 3:1 and so forth up to 4:4. You say that its referring to Judgment Day. Okay i will say that is partially true if i read up to you this verse.
1 Peter 4:17
"For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?"
You must know the whole Truth about Judgement Day using the whole Bible
And now you say Christ not fulfill the law...of what? That is why He is punished by God? Can you please tell me what is your stand now?
And can you please tell me where in the Bible that Ten Commandment also intended to the Son of God ?
"Paul hadn't written his letter yet. So he can't have been fulfilling the letter, because there was no letter at that point"-Admin
"What I'm saying with regards to Paul's letter is that even if Hebrews did establish a law, Jesus cannot have fulfilled that law if Jesus came before Hebrews. I think you're missing my point."-Admin
I am having trouble to reconcile this two statement you have. I am so sorry.
"There are no hills or cliffs in Nazareth, or in any depression. Nazareth is certainly not built on a hill."-Admin
Now i know why you are so confused of a word "DEPRESSION" you based it in a Drawing. You have to read again Luke chapter 4. I like the drawing of one you showed up. Yes i seen hills and small cliff. I strongly suggest that look for another Pictures not just like Drawing
The one that built on the Hill is "Their CITY". More confusing, right?
"Clearly not. Luke wrote down what eyewitnesses told him, according to his own testimony. There is no evidence he ever personally saw Nazareth at all.-Admin
" I have no end to questions about the Bible (how on earth did the apostle Luke think Nazareth was in a depression? Could he not even read a map? What else did he just make up?)"-Admin
I am confusing now with this two statement of yours. and where can you see in the Bible that Luke didn't ever personally saw Nazareth? I am just asking
"The discovery first made in Egypt (long before Galileo, by the way) was that the earth is round (this was actually already discovered by scientists in Isiah's time but Israel didn't believe it until much later)." can you please tell me where i can find this?
I didn't say Isaiah believe that the earth is round or circle in that time FYI........................ You still don't know how the Prophets Talking. Who's Hebrew are you talking about and what time is that picture revealed about the earth what the hebrew believe?
"The Greeks had first come up with the idea of atoms many centuries before."-Admin . I need a reference of this as well.
..."His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made"....
Invisible attributes- Eternal power and Divine Nature and etc....
..being understood by the things that are made..-that includes Matter and Atoms
"there is a smallest possible particle of any chemical element" -admin The are no such thing about chemical element fully understood by ancient Jews. And no word Chemical Element in the Bible. Like...No Word America in the Bible but there is America in the Bible.
"This all may be evidence of molecules, but not of atoms."-admin Remember that 'The basic building blocks of the "normal" matter that we see in the Universe are atoms, and combinations of atoms that we call molecules." (
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/light/atoms.htmlhttp://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/light/atoms.html
)
The Old Path
nzlockie:
The principle of Computers in the Bible is clearly seen.
First it is included to what Daniel say in his Prophecy in Daniel 12:4
"But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."
Here we can see that Computer is included, to some extent that there are no times aside from our time that knowledge is Increase and the people will run to and fro absolutely exceedingly. The invention of Computer is the result of Human intellectual intelligent due of knowledge Increase. But i really have basis of computer in the Bible but i am so sorry, let me reserved those wisdom and knowledge for the meantime.
The Old Path
olive 2:
I have NO IDEA how you got computers from this passage. Sorry bro, you don't speak for me on this one!
This sentence you're talking about, taken in context, is more likely to refer to the fact that many people will look for detail about the end times, information which is contained in the scroll God tells Daniel to seal up.
You could just as easily say this verse predicts Google!
Seriously though, there's no need to read this stuff into the Bible. The Bible is there to teach us about God, not about Earth.
By
admin |
May 5 2014 1:09 AM:
OK, so let me just make some stuff clear. I think you have a view that a bunch of folks got together after the death of Jesus and decided to put together a nice account of everything that happened, stick it together with Jewish scriptures, and call that the Bible. That's not how it happened at all.
After the death of Jesus the apostles went out into the world preaching. Although Peter was supposedly the overall leader in the Catholic tradition, James had the most ecclesiastical authority as the first archbishop of Jerusalem, and Paul was good enough of a preacher to be pretty much the main spokesperson for the faith. There's this period of about twenty years between the death of Jesus where the disciples were literally just going around preaching and NOTHING was written down. For all this time none of the apostles even thought to write letters to each other. From this scattering of the theology a number of interpretations were drawn about Jesus. Note that I'm being very generous with that 20 year figure. Skeptics will note that we don't actually have physical evidence anything was written for more like 40 years. But whatever, eventually they started writing letters to one another. At the time when almost all of the canonical letters were written (presuming that they were written when the church says they were written, which is again hotly contested among skeptics like me) none of the canonical gospels had been written. The writers of the letters were primarily concerned with pushing their own interpretations of the faith, given the wide range of interpretations that had become prevalent as the tale of Jesus was disseminated. We know that because most of the authors of the letters were killed when the Romans decided to wipe out all the Christians about 30 years after the death of Jesus. It's also important to realize that the canonical letters were not the only letters in the early church. In an effort to promote their own theology, believers in other traditions also wrote letters. Many critical scholars believe that certain parts of the letters, such as the actual signing of the names of the authors at the beginning of many of the letters, was a weak attempt to discourage identity thieves (in the same way as a signature still does today). It should also be noted that other writers wrote letters that while not included in the bible, do not differ from it, and ultimately were just as important to the development of the church. Ignatius and Polycarp are perhaps the most important examples.
At about the same time as the persecution, Mark decided to write his gospel, a powerful, short and imaginative retelling of the Jesus story. This became a bit of a craze. For another 50 years or so every church in the world was writing their own gospels. From this period we have dozens of different accounts. Some are completely compatible with the letters but not with the canonical gospels. Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels about 20 years later, plagiarizing most of their gospels' material from Mark. There is no evidence, however, that they ever knew each other or heard about the other's gospel. John is a tricky one to date. Most of the critical scholars believe it was written even later than Matthew and Luke by another 20 or 30 years, at about the same time when the book of revelation was being written. A minority of religious scholars believe it was written far earlier, about the same time as Mark. Either way it certainly constitutes an independent tradition that just so happens to not disagree too much from Mark. There are two notable points of disagreement, among more inconsequential ones - first, John and the letter writers miss the narrative of the conception of Jesus entirely for some weird reason, and second, Mark's gospel ends abruptly before any resurrection can happen, with no indication that it will. I'll come back to that though. The cause of these omissions should be obvious in any case - when the writers had that many stories verbally told to them, doing a full and fair investigation was always going to be difficult, so they only wrote the stuff they believed was definitely right.
By the second century AD, learned scholars (who today are known as the "church fathers") began the difficult task of determining which books were "divinely inspired" and which were not (in almost every case, the "divinely inspired" books just so happened to be the ones the writer in question already agreed with). Origen was the pre-eminent example. He was the first to write a complete commentary of all the books of the bible, which was referred to by basically all Christians for the next few centuries. Not all of his views agreed with Christianity today, but he had perhaps a better understanding of the text than anybody due to his in-depth knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. Irenaeus was another important one, who wrote a refutation against views he saw as being heretical. At this point it's important to note that there was still no Bible. In 321, the Roman empire converted to Christianity through Constantine I. This was a problem because Christianity still hadn't sorted out what exactly they believed yet. Constantine didn't like religious disputes, so he created the first council of Nicea in 325 to decide what Christians should believe, and presided over it himself. There were many hot debates at the council between Arias and Athanasius, two great preachers who disagreed largely on the exact nature of the holy trinity and what that would mean for Jesus. From this was developed the Nicene Creed, which was once refined slightly in 381. The Nicene Creed is today agreed to by every single Christian church worldwide. There is greater agreement on the Nicene Creed than there is on what books to include in the Bible.
The old testament was largely settled at the Council of Jamnia in the first century, but the new testament (and thus the bible as a whole) wasn't a settled question until the middle of the fourth century. There various codexes began to appear - a few of which still survive - with all of the Bible books in Greek, largely copied from the Septuagint texts, but they did not establish a clear canon in any theological sense. In c.400 Jerome published a definitive Latin bible to fully settle the question. Prior to that preachers just casually added or removed books as it suited them from among the hundreds of different traditions regarding Jesus. The Synod of Hippo names the books of the Catholic canon in 393, though it misses the books of the Orthodox canon. To add to the confusion, from the reformation onwards there have continued to be theological debates (and they continue to this day) about exactly how divinely inspired various books are, especially the so-called Apocrypha.
This is relevant to what I was saying before about there being some gaps in some of the gospels. Obviously the gospels wouldn't all agree with each other (that would actually be evidence that they were inauthentic given how they were compiled), but put together they tell the complete story. The early church fathers were very aware of these gaps and the contradictions, minor though they are, between the books, but these were the books with the best agreement from among those that agreed with the philosophy that eventually won out from among the many traditions. Unlike, say, Islam, Christianity was not born out of a single tradition that became many, but from many traditions that became one.
I'm not making any of this up by the way. Would be happy to back this all up with references if you like.
So let's make some stuff clear. When Paul condemned Peter, there was no Gospel for Peter to follow. No Gospel was even written until after both Peter and Paul died. It would be hundreds more years before any gospel was accepted by Christians as absolutely canonical. Paul had no idea what Jesus actually said during his lifetime (on at least one occasion in his letters he blatantly makes something up that Jesus didn't actually say - in Acts 20:35). Peter did because he knew him, but Paul only knew what little he had gleamed from his time interrogating Christians when he was a prosecutor (his former job just so happened to be attacking Christians in courtrooms), and from that one time Jesus appeared to him in a vision and made him blind for a while. Second, we know that Peter was separating himself from the followers of James here. Therefore James must have been already on Paul's side and Peter was defying James' authority. This is significant. As I said, James was pretty much the boss of the church, even if Peter was the nominal head. But Paul was a nobody. He held no serious title within the church at all. So while Paul does not say he argued with Peter in an epic debate, it would be entirely reasonable for his audience (who knew all this) to make the logical conclusion that if Peter tried defying James he would do the same to Paul. Why didn't Paul just write what he meant to say then? Out of respect for Peter. Paul wisely frames it as a small mistake Peter made, not that Peter is wrong, to avoid challenging Peter's authority in the church and his status as Jesus' key disciple. Paul probably realized that Peter was actually pretty important for the stability of the church at the time.
With regards to Jerome, there can be no question that he was in fact the author of the first complete Bible in Latin beyond any doubt. He was certainly heavily involved with editing it and, among others, probably helped work out the final list of what texts to include from the Nicene Creed. Nonetheless although Jerome expressed doubts as to authorship, he still considered the work of 2 Peter divinely inspired. Pseudepigrapha was actually really common at that time and wouldn't have excluded a work from the Bible. You can read more about St Jerome at
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=10
. Whether Christ himself did that divine inspiring as you would believe, or whether the whole question of divine inspiration makes no sense as I believe, is rather irrelevant to the discussion of who actually put the quill to the parchment and wrote those words.
I consider 1 Peter 4:17 also quite irrelevant. The issue at hand is whether the passage in Malachi is a messianic prophecy or an apocalyptic judgement day prophecy. It pretty clearly is not the former. Peter's suggestion that judgement should begin in the church is certainly among the more controversial and difficult to interpret passages as I stated in the other thread. At best, if law, it could only have come into effect after the time of Jesus, since 1 Peter was written long after that time.
"And now you say Christ not fulfill the law...of what? That is why He is punished by God? Can you please tell me what is your stand now?"
Personally, where I stand is that there was no law for Christ to fulfill. He happened to fulfill a couple of predictions here and there but most of the "predictions" made about him in the Bible and read during Christmas services are usually taken way out of context. In this particular case, the passage from Isiah cannot refer to the savior, and that would make no sense in the context of what Isiah's overall point here is anyway.
"And can you please tell me where in the Bible that Ten Commandment also intended to the Son of God?"
Romans 13:9 makes it very clear that Christ's expounding of the law during the sermon on the mount in fact was directly theologically connected to all of the ten commandments, showing that Christ did not reject the commandments. Since Christ is supposed to have been a perfect embodiment of the law and did not reject the ten commandments, he must have kept them.
With regards to my statements on the timeline of the letter to the Hebrews creating a law, let me explain - first there was Jesus. Then Jesus died. Then the letter was written. Jesus came FIRST, before the letter to the Hebrews. Everything Jesus fulfilled, he fulfilled before Hebrews was written, because Hebrews was not written until after Jesus died. As you have admitted previously, you can't fulfill a law that hasn't been written. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Jesus could not have fulfilled a law in the letter to the Hebrews. Does that make things clearer?
Now i know why you are so confused of a word "DEPRESSION" you based it in a Drawing. You have to read again Luke chapter 4. I like the drawing of one you showed up. Yes i seen hills and small cliff. I strongly suggest that look for another Pictures not just like Drawing
The one that built on the Hill is "Their CITY". More confusing, right?
Nice to see that you looked at my drawings of Nazareth, but you clearly did not read what I wrote. My evidence for Nazareth being in a depression comes from archaeological evidence of where exactly the town was situated in ancient times, not merely from studying maps made by others. The drawings indicate the location on a map and an artist's depiction thereof. This is important because the modern town of Nazareth is much larger and the city center is in a slightly different spot. There is no Nazareth that was built on a hill. I'd very much like to know where you think this cliff is by the way. Though some hills surrounded the city, there were no hills within the city limits until 1957 when the city was greatly expanded by the growing Arab population there (today that area is called Nazareth Illit). In fact the church to commemorate this particular miracle is at the closest hill that somebody could actually be hurt from if they were thrown off it, about three kilometers from the ancient city.
"where can you see in the Bible that Luke didn't ever personally saw Nazareth?"
Luke by his own admission collected the accounts of eyewitnesses and was not a witness to anything himself. He appears in his own book of Acts as a doctor and follower of Paul, which is confirmed by several other Christian writers from soon after. Paul never visited Nazareth. The same works confirm he spent all of the rest of his life in either Rome or Greece, a fact confirmed by one of the letters of Paul. Other than perhaps Paul, we know more about where exactly Luke went in his life than anybody else, and so I'm pretty confident that both the Bible and other evidence agree Luke never actually saw Nazareth himself.
[earth being a sphere, Egyptians discovered this before Isiah] "can you please tell me where i can find this?"
Seems I was slightly off. Isiah, according to tradition, lived during the 700s BC. For some reason I thought it was the 500s, looks like I was wrong. Homer, who predated Isiah slightly, certainly did know about the curvature of the earth according to Strabo, but he did not have formal proof. Necho II of Egypt hired an expedition that sailed to the southern seas and observed changes in the sun, proving a spherical earth for the first time, in the 600s. To be fair, there was still some skepticism even among wise people. Herodotus famously thought they were lying. It was certainly long before Galileo though. Aristotle later proved it beyond any doubt, and Pythagoras may have even proved it before that.
"I didn't say Isaiah believe that the earth is round or circle in that time FYI..." you did say that all the information man needs to know is in the bible, including about atoms, computers, and the earth being round.I'm just saying that the Bible does not say these things. It does not tell us what shape the earth has with any accuracy at all. I'm not passing any judgement on what Isiah personally may have believed. By the way, the "hebrews" I'm talking about are the ethnic Hebrew people, though their model of the cosmos is not that different from the rest of the world's early ideas. If you need sources for the above drawing, refer to Job 22:14, Job 26:11, Job 37:18, Gen. 1, Psalms 24:2, Psalms 19:4-6, Psalms 77:18, Psalms 148:4, Prov. 8:27-28, Deut. 4:17, Deut. 5:8, 2 Sam. 22:8, Gen. 7:11-12, Gen. 8:2, Num. 16:30-33, Exekiel 1:22-26, Amos 9:6 and Isa. 14. There's also a LOT of evidence that Hebrews like Isiah actually believed all this weird Bible stuff
- read this very informative article for more information if you're interested in obscure old Hebrew beliefs:
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre13.htm
. This is actually still an issue for Jews today, particularly Pesachim 94a / 94b, and Baba Batra 25b. The Jews who wrote the Talmud (this was long AFTER JESUS) still believed in a flat earth.
Reference for Greeks inventing the concept of atoms - Democritus and Leucippus (
http://www.iep.utm.edu/democrit/
). See also Lucretius, whose poem basically has the Greeks destroying all religion with the amazing power of their atoms. By the way, the Indians also knew about atoms. The word "atom" even appears in the Bhagavad Gita from the 3rd century BC, about the same time as the Greeks.
"..being understood by the things that are made..-that includes Matter and Atoms" - but only if you knew about atoms first could you reach that conclusion. If you did not believe atoms existed this passage wouldn't tell you that atoms existed, any more than it would tell you the moon is made of cheese. It doesn't tell you which things are made and which are not, only that things are made and that some of them are invisible.
"The are no such thing about chemical element fully understood by ancient Jews. And no word Chemical Element in the Bible." - and that's part of the reason why there's no atoms in the bible either. The Bible tells us nothing about atoms, not even that they exist. Funnily enough, many other cultures did believe in chemical elements. The Greeks, for example, believed in Earth, Fire, Air and Water as the constituent elements of every other thing in the universe.
"Like...No Word America in the Bible but there is America in the Bible." - and this is where I lose you. If you're saying there is America in a written work but America is not written in the work, you must be adding things to that written work.
"The basic building blocks of the "normal" matter that we see in the Universe are atoms, and combinations of atoms that we call molecules" - your link here is broken. I'm actually convinced the science here is about 40 years out of date since we now know subatomic forces are the basic building blocks of matter, atoms are merely groups of such powers that create the chemical elements. Regardless my point here is to show there is no evidence in this passage for atoms any more than molecules or any other thing, small or large, real or fake. It's a pretty meaningless statement to say "some things are invisible" - I mean, are we to suppose ghosts are real too?
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
nzlockie:
Well, believe it or not, i don't have problems. It's up to you, as i have learned from the bible that every time i shared a things about in the bible don't to force them to believe.Let faith do his work. Christ is right when he say this things.
Matthew 19:11
But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given:
And by the way, I will say that you are correct that the Bible teach us about God, and Christ is right too when he say this things.
John 3:12
If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
Daniel Chapter 12 has a wider scope to be consider and its talking about our times. Now if you really want to know the specific verse about Computer in the bible, you also will astonished with it when you found out, that is why i considered that Bible speak of the Future, because God knew it long time ago. I will give you a clue......"the one who sees the future seen the technology of our time including computers"
Remember this Faith is the Key.
The Old Path
