Originally posted by foudroyant
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Christianity 201 Guidelines
orthodox Christians only.
Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining "Christian" or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.
The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining "Christian" or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.
The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
The Baldie Vs Mariology
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by foudroyant View PostPeople may share in God's knowledge but they will never have the same level of God's knowledge.Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.
Comment
-
http://www.studylight.org/com/whe/view.cgi?bk=18&ch=65
2. Gill: O thou that hearest prayer,.... So as to answer it sooner or later, in one way or another, and always in the fittest time, and in the best way; so as to fulfil the requests and supply the wants of men, so far as may be for their good, and God's glory; which is a proof of the omnipresence, omniscience, and all sufficiency of God; who can hear the prayers of his people in all places at the same time, and knows all their persons and wants, and what is most proper for them, and can and does supply all their needs, and causes all grace to abound towards them; and it also shows his wondrous grace and condescension, to listen to the cries and regard the prayers of the poor and destitute
http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?bk=18&ch=65
Comment
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostCorrect. So God can share some degree of knowledge without sharing all of it. Why could He not share knowledge of people's hearts without making the person totally omniscient?
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostAgain, the Greek, the names are all in the genitive case. Luke was explicit. It is the interpretation of the translator, who adds the additional words "the son" which is NOT in the Greek The KJV, RV, ASV, NASB and the NKJV all show that is the case, having the added words "the son" in italics to show the reader that is the thranslators interpretation. Another example of this genitive case being mistranslated in every translation is Mark 2:26, "Abiathar the high priest." The Greek for high priest is in the genitive case. Where it should be translated "Abiathar [son] of the high priest." Maids and servants of the high priest are not called "high priest." Neither should Abiathar in that historical context.
You are also trying to force a meaning upon the text of Mk 2,26 that is just not there. The reason for the genitive in Mark is not because of sonship but because it is part of a prepositional phrase with the preposition 'epi' which takes the genitive case and commonly indicates 'the time of' or somtimes even 'in the presence of'. Mark would not use a prepositional phrase to indicate that Abiathar is the son of the high priest at that time: during the time of Abiathar, who was the son of the high priest. If he wanted to indicate the time when Abiathar's father was high priest, he would simply have used Abiathar's father's name. If someone wanted to refer to the political leadership in the US during the years of 1992-2000, would anyone ever say 'during the time when Chelsea Clinton, who was the daughter of President Bill Clinton'? No, we'd just say 'when Bill Clinton was president'. Your twisting the normal meaning of a text out of fear that there might be a minor inaccuracy. Did Mark make a small mistake, perhaps. Matthew and/or Luke probably thought so since they both deleted the whole phrase. If they understood the prepositional phrase to mean 'during the time of Abiathar the son of the high priest' they would have kept it or worded it much less awkwardly, eg, putting in the name of the actual high priest at the time. But rather than correct Jesus (or Mark), implying that one of them made a mistake, perhaps it seemed safer to delete the phrase entirely. Personally, I don't think it is a big deal. Abiathar soon became high priest so there's no real issue. Jesus did do this in the presence of Abiathar, who did soon become high priest. Or even if Jesus or more likely Mark had a lapse of memory and thought Abiathar was high priest at that time, why is that such a big deal?אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
-
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostThe saint doesn't have to know the heart of everyone, just the one(s) God shows to them.
TDNT: The designation of God as ho kardiognwstes, "the One who knows the heart," expresses in a single term (Ac. 1:24; 15:8) something which is familiar to both the NT and OT piety (Lk. 16:15; R. 8:27; 1 Th. 2:4; Rev. 2:23 of Christ, cf. 1 Bas. 16:7; 3 Bas. 8:39; 1 Par. 28:9; Psalm 7:9; Ier. 11:20; 17:10; Sir. 42:18 ff.), namely that the omniscient God knows the innermost being of every man where the decision is made either for Him or against Him (3:613, kardiognwstes, Behm).Last edited by foudroyant; 02-28-2014, 07:14 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by foudroyant View PostTo know the totality of just one heart is the same thing as being omniscient.
TDNT: The designation of God as ho kardiognwstes, "the One who knows the heart," expresses in a single term (Ac. 1:24; 15:8) something which is familiar to both the NT and OT piety (Lk. 16:15; R. 8:27; 1 Th. 2:4; Rev. 2:23 of Christ, cf. 1 Bas. 16:7; 3 Bas. 8:39; 1 Par. 28:9; Psalm 7:9; Ier. 11:20; 17:10; Sir. 42:18 ff.), namely that the omniscient God knows the innermost being of every man where the decision is made either for Him or against Him (3:613, kardiognwstes, Behm).Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostKnowing one heart is the exactly the same thing as knowing everything? That's absurd on its very face. Have you considered that calling God the one who knows the heart might be metonymy rather than a perfect summary of what it means to be omniscient?
Comment
-
Originally posted by foudroyant View PostNothing in James teaches to pray to those (other than God) in heaven. You cited the Book of James so prove your point.
I am not talking about praying FOR someone but praying TO someone.
My reference to Romans 8:26-27 has not been addressed.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostI'm not citing James to prove anything so specific as that. As I stated before, the saints in heaven are righteous. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much. Therefore, the prayers of the saints in heaven avail much; that's why we ask them to pray for us. I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that.
So am I!
Your reference to Romans 8:26-27 is entirely beside the point. Yes, the Spirit makes intercession for us, beyond what we even know how to utter, because He knows our hearts. The saints do not know our hearts, and thus cannot put into words what we cannot. Nobody expects them to. Please stop claiming that we do.
Romans 8:26-27 disproves your heretical belief that saints in heaven can be prayed to. Only God is able to fully know the mind of the Spirit - the source of which these prayers come from.
Psalm 62:5 also refutes that belief that anyone other than God in heaven is to be prayed to.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seanD, 06-04-2024, 05:46 PM
|
10 responses
64 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
06-06-2024, 12:08 PM
|
||
Started by KingsGambit, 06-02-2024, 07:25 PM
|
1 response
26 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Faber
06-03-2024, 08:59 AM
|
Comment