Can God be "especially the Savior of them who believe," unless He be actually the Savior of all? -- (1Tim. 4:10)
Yes I agree. It's like saying "I like biscuits especially chocolate digestives" rather than "I dislike all biscuits except chocolate digestives".
Who/ what is All?
The All are those who believe,
They were believing in the beginning,
and they would be believing in the end.
Those who do not believe are not part of the all,
they believed not at the beginning ,
Neither can they believe at the end.
Many of the say they do not believe, but when
they do understand they will believe.
Many who are not of the all
Say they believe, but in the end these will not
believe because they are incapable of understanding.
Who/What is All.
Are we talking about the same all found here...
Col 1:20Col 1:20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Eph 4:6One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through
all, and in you all.
John 3:35 The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand.
John 6:39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
and most of all...
1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
The Writers wrote what they wrote, based on their understanding.
My understanding of All may not be the same as yours.
I can answer yes or even no,
Don't think it would mean much...
This is exactly how the real gospel was watered down through out Christian history. Most Christians dont read scripture the way they were meant to read it, they read scripture the way they are. The early believers who lived during the time of Paul's ministry understood what Paul meant, and I believe I do as well when he used the word "all" in 1Cor 15:22.
Believers will not need scriptures in order to be believers...
Only unbelievers find scriptures as necessary..
If the integrity of my belief lies in the text, then I am better of as the text itself...
and In fact I cannot be more than it.
If you had of said this during the times of the apostles, I would of agreed with you. Today, the letters from Paul play a huge part in Christianity. Here is the thing about Paul and his ministry to the gentile Christians during his day. He never taught that only some are saved, he encouraged us to teach the ministry of reconciliation of all things with God. You follow another gospel than the one Paul brought us.
Hey and do not go easy here. He had to fight like hell against Peter and the crew to get this done. And ultimately he was killed because he taught this Gospel to Romans, that even they are included and loved and need not principalities to have eternal life. Superman is cool, but Paul is the coolest.
As you know, the difference between Christianity and "All" is not merely a matter of spelling....
The difference between a Christian and a unbeliever is the differences we create to seperate ourselves from the other.
Who is "We"...
You mean you and those like you...?
As you do by your insisting on adhering to the text...
I have no such compunction, for both the All and its image is understood, and work to my benefit.
I do not seperate myself from my unbelieving syblings, it is your belief system that seperates them from you. Your own words are proof of that. You understand the word "all" as only Christians seperating yourself from the unbeliever when I know it means all mankind (what a loving thought), so try to deny it. The proof is in this forum question for all to see.
Is that your best argument? Proof kiss proof.
Kess, think this way for just a second. I do not know you. I love you. I would even lay down my life for you. (I know, totally whacky and just absurd, except for a Christian) I do not get to decide if you deserve my love. How much more does our Father love us?
The Father who teaches his love from a book is the one who do not know what love is and I have already rejected him as Father.
No father teaches his love from a book, much less God. Most Christians teach His love from a book, but so many more teach his judgment.
whose loves does the christian teach from a book...
...is not that god they their father...
that god i have rejected...
or did i mis read you
I don't think you totally misread me. A lot of Christians (especially evangelicals) teach of God's love strictly from the bible including the idea that he loves us so much that he is willing to send us to hell than to see us become good. It comes down to which particular biblical author people resonate with the best.
A man will feel the need to quote text because he has no confidence in his own knowledge or understanding...
These inevitably will teach about a false God....
And it is not the fact that they do these things that works against them..
after all.God purpose is achieved by men going through a period of blindness.
But its their humility, or lack thereof that detrimental.
Kess, do you see the problem in what you just did? You just redefined a word to make it exclusive. Who, any time, any where, for any reason taught that? If we accept this tradition, then those who are not circumcised cannot know God. Therefor women cannot know God.
It not about definition...
It is about understanding....
When All is reflected..., what is the reflection.....?
How do you differentiate the All from its reflection (image) ?
There is no reflection. All as it was written in the verses I provided mean all (all mankind).Understanding the word "all" in a child's eye is so simple, and I see it as a child does.
That my friend is what we call a distinction without a difference. I would see all being reflected. And that would not be "all people over 6 ft with blue eyes". It would be All people. How can one change the meaning of "all"?
I offered you an explanation which you did not get....
Like I said from the beginning...
Understand Who/What is All..
Not all would agree ...because not all is All
Most all Christians do not believe that those who call themselves Christians are Christians, yet they believe that Christ is Lord above all. When you say that all means only Christians, you seperate yourself from unbelievers who yet have God in them, therefore you seperate yourself from God as well.
You can only speak your perception
I spoke mine which I say again, you have not understood....
I will try one more time...
All will believe and be save, because they are the All....
Some will not believe and wont be saved
because they are not All, but merely an image of All.
Why cant you understand that....
Something/ anything is what it is.....it retains it integrity, thus it is what it is.
But yet that particular, posses and image(reflection) of itself,
If you think that they same thing, then I can't help you further.
I understood fully what you said and believe, because I believed in the same stuff once. As for "Some will not believe and won't be saved", I only need this verse.
Romans 3: 3What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?
and why not this verse as well...
Romans 11:32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
If you understood you would agree...
...and would not see the need to quote any other thing.
I would of agreed with you five years ago, praise God He has lifted the veil from my eyes to see that perfect love will win in the end.
It was 1Tim 4:10 that started me on this quest, but I am not surprised in your attitude at all. A loving Christian would of asked me how it is that I have come to this understanding in scripture. You show no interest at all, because like most in your belief system, you think you know it already.
The Holy Book of the living God suffers more from its exponents today than from its opponents. - Leonard Ravenhill
The integrity of the All, lies on the fact that they posses the understanding of All...
....not merely a verse written here or there...
but like I said...
"All" and "Christian" is not synonymous ....as you already know...
You have not shown what the "all" means pertaining the verses I have provided. Instead you attempt to change the definition of its meaning to the doctrines you follow.
Yes you did explain it, but it was an inaccurate interpretation of its meaning.
Great question. I think the best way of understanding this passage is to embrace the idea that Christ's death is sufficient for the salvation of all men but only applicable to those who believe. In this way Christ is "especially the Savior of them who believe". this is of course not without debate; however, whichever position a person takes will require consistency. In my case, I happen to believe that "all" simply means all...every single person that is. Nevertheless, just because Christ is positionally the savior of all men, in practice, only those who embrace Him as savior receive the benefits of His sacrifice.
I look at it like this. Christ saved us all from our Graves, but the blessings of salvation start when you become a believer.
Sword...I am not asking with a demeaning motive but what exactly do you mean "saved us all from our Graves"? That the blessings of salvation start when you become a believer ...I get...but its the first phrase that I am a little confused about.
Maybe this will help...
1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Okay...is your perspective one which see the 1 Corinthians 15 passage as highlighting the future resurrection from the "Grave" for all people...resurrection of life to some (Those who believe) and resurrection to condemnation for others (Those who denied Christ)?
1 Cor 15:23 But each in turn: Christ (Yeshua), the firstfruits (believers); then, when he comes, those who belong to him (the rest of Mankind).
When you study the three ancient festivals of Israel, you start to understand their purpose. The three festivals are an anology to come which they have. The first festival was the feast of passover. The ceramonial sacrifice of a lamb (Christ), the the feast of Penacost (the day of the apostles and the birth of the Jesus movement), and last, the feast of Tabernackle (The great harvest of the rest of mankind. I believe that Christ was the first to be reserrected, and afterwards His saints, while the rest of the dead slept in their graves. The question now is the second returning of Christ when the rest will be reserrected. I believe His return already happened AD70 with the destruction of Jerusalem, while most still wait for His second coming.
Respectfully in disagreement with your interpretation Sword but interesting dialogue... thanks!
Np, but I encourage you to look into the three festivals and comapire them with what I wrote. It may open your eyes wide.
Sword...I am familiar with the festivals and have always been intrigued by them; however, I do think we need to be careful with reading too much into Scripture. One of the challenges of any person who seeks to understand and teach the Scripture to others is to do so in a manner of consistency and carefulness...after all in James 3 we are reminded that "stricter judgment" will await those who teach the Scripture. Interestingly, whether in an official capacity or not, teaching Scripture I believe would include that which takes place even in a forum such as this. I would encourage you to take a look at how the Scripture utilizes the term rendered "Sleep" when in the context of death...in my best estimation, it is always used to refer to those who have died "In Christ"...that is to say "Believers". In addition, with an interest towards consistency and carefulness, I believe you will will have to do a great deal of work in making a viable case for the "AD 70 Return" position if you wish to be consistent with Scripture. It may make for a pretty intriguing conversation but I don't think such a position can be sustained if your source of authority is Scripture. Yet, admittedly, these are just the ramblings of a man who tries to remain thoroughly biblical and who actually believes that Scripture was written to be understood in its most plain sense. (which is not to deny either the genre of Scripture or the appropriate method of interpreting certain types of literature)
Friend, I am far from worthy of being a teacher of God. I only express what I believe, especially when asked like you did. As for AD70, you could call me a preterist. It depends on what time you believe Revelations was written that leads you to what you believe now.
A forum is not a place to teach, it is a place to share beliefs. If I were a teacher or a preacher as you call it, why wasn't I lead by the Holy Spirit then?
My friend, you do not have to be led by the holy spirit at all times in order to teach or preach. Sometimes, simply sharing your beliefs are enough to teach and given your passion for it is enough to preach. Before I met you, I had no idea what a preterist universalist was. Now I do.. You taught me your beliefs. See the connection?
Well Deeps, if I am a teacher, than I sadly feel I qualify as one of the many false teachers Paul warned us about. This was something I wanted to avoid. But I am compelled to spread the gosple of UR.
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
1) When spreading the gospel of UR, are you spreading it with your own personal agenda with the intention of controlling or deceiving people into believing what you want them to believe or are you spreading it because you truly believe it to be true as according to what is written in the bible?
2)You say you are compelled to spread the gospel of UR. Is it something that you are able to stop doing if you wanted to?
3) If you feel that you are one of the false teachers that paul warned about, then why continue to teach?
1, Before I learned of UR, I was in constant engagement with muslims, which in most times got heated up. Then I discovered UR, and my attitude towards muslims changed totally. Sadly the church became my target with the same attitude I had against muslims. Later, I once read that we do not spread the gospel for our sacks so we can boast about it, we do it only to glorify God (which verse that is , I am uncertain). I needed to be humbled by God and other URs. They witnessed my hostility and taught me how to approach certain Christians. It is not an easy or fast process. I do not try to deceive anyone, because what I believe in about UR is the absolute truth about salvation for all. While talking about it, I do slip at times when I am constantly bombarded with insults. I asked my friend Gary Amirault who is the publisher of Tenmaker.com how he does it, and he said with a lot of patience and experienced. I know a lot of what I believe in outside of UR may not be the truth, and that is why I am cautious.
2, No! I have been told to stop trying many times. I once needed a break and now I am on fire again, but this time out of love for Him my Father.
Religions cause only conflict, that is why they need to be discarded if we are to unite as people, not Christians and Muslims.
Yes, rather than discard the religion, you simply focused the conflict elsewhere.
That is why you will do nothing but cause more conflict in the world, hostility and religion go hand in hand.
YOU are the one causing the conflict. No one is insulting you, but those who cause conflicts certainly don't deserve any respect.
My friend, you are very well spoken. It is good to always take stock of the awesome responsibility of standing in front, and expressing understanding of the scripture.
That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.
New Living Translation (©2007)
This is why we work hard and continue to struggle, for our hope is in the living God, who is the Savior of all people and particularly of all believers.
English Standard Version (©2001)
For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
This is just one example of what's wrong with some of the newer translations, the "improved", or "easier to read", or "modern" versions of the Bible.
You're apparently using one of the versions at the top of the list, or some others (for there are many!).
If you'll notice, the top versions say something just slightly different than the KJV version at the bottom of the list, yet if makes a huge huge difference in the integrity of the entire passage.
Christ is the Savior of all men in that He offers it to all men. There are bunches of Bible passages that back that up; that He offers to all, but that we must choose Him. So that part shouldn't even be in question.
So....I take it that it's the word "specially" that's thrown you for a loop.......
There is a difference (though it may be indiscernible to those who aren't seeking the truth) between "specially" and "especially"! You can call it simply nothing, or you can call it a small nuance that means nothing, but indeed it means a lot.
Anytime I ever use any "modern" Bible like the NIV or any of those that assume that a Christian is too stupid to interpret the KJV for themselves, I compare it to the KJV. And so far, all the comparisons show that the KJV is far superior and will lead ya to the right conclusion instead of a myriad of wrong ones like the one you've fallen into here..............
........one "little"...."e" can sometimes trip up a fervent mind, especially when that mind is looking for proof that defies the entire context of a book...........
(for for this are we toiling and being reproached), that we rely on the living God, Who is the Saviour of all mankind, especially of believers.
This is alot more accurate than the KJV.
Brenda do you even know at all about the politics of the KJV.?
There is a good reason it is called the King James Version. The Dude had it written just to piss off people.
There are over 200 "copyrighted" bible versions. Each copyright requires that it is substantially different that the one that it was derived from. That has been going on for over 200 years. So basically you have 200 X's 200 versions.
Literalists of any contemporary modern bible are complete moronic imbeciles. Just think some guy says "This Bible that has been translated and copyrighted 30 times is the word of God". I think we would have to call in the lawyers to make that call ------ do you see the absurdity?
The only "word" that never changes, is always true and cannot be changed altered or made into something else is "Love". Never a piece of paper.
Eric, truth be told, all bibles have been writen by men who translate scripture from books that were translated by men who never lived during the times of the apostles.
The problem starts there.
No!! SoM. I preach from the bible every week. I loves da Bible. The problem is resolved there not started there. I see man in the Bible and it is good to see him. But that is all he is --- man. But no matter the translation, transliteration hyperbole and presumptive epitome I see the Word and that Word is Love. Go ahead try to defeat me. I live in love. You may beat my brains and flesh, but my love you cannot whoop. The Bible is so bitchin cool, because it always points to love. If for another it points to envy, hate, harm and rejection, that is not in the Bible that is in the heart of the reader. I tell you Truth.
I am not your enemy Eric, and I do not desire to defeat you. Yes it is true, the bible is read as we are, and it is not read as it was meant to be read. In love.
I like this saying from Bishop Butler about the bible.
It is not at all incredible, that a book which has been so long in the possession of mankind should contain many truths as yet undiscovered.
My friend let others hear: You are the enemy of my flesh. Because here you write to teach me more than flesh.
We must accept our defeat. I am defeated. Oh but He is not.
It is those who preach the bible every week, every day, whatever, that causes the hate, the harm and the rejection, it is YOU who is causing the conflict, no one else.
Friend, SoM and ATM. The bible is the source of conflict. Not our hearts. My words above were well chosen and true. I preach the Bible every week, because it is the source of commonality. It is cool to the rule. But whoa be upon me, if the word is just another book of rules. No way Jose'. I have about 14 thousand pages of law in my office. Everything from inheritance to Codes of Civil Prodedure to Criminal type statutes. Yuk!! I have a danged Doctorate of Juris Prudence and a degree in Philosophy and they do me know good, lest I view my neighbor and enemy in love. Books are the beginning of understanding not the end of it.
ATM sees conflict when he should see understanding, SoM you read my comment as though there is something to understand and not to feel.
No, I took a second thought on it. I at first thought is was an insult, but now I know it is the exact opposit. Thank you Eric.
We are convicted and must look at all things in love. And then and only then can our brothers and sisters understand how much we love them. Our piece and peace are not rights, but obligations.
Allow us to be convicted and held to trial and tribulation. Let you beat my flesh so that I do not live in it. Please harm my body, so I can love.
Of course that is all crazy talk. Off to work I go. The birds are just being crazy today, and in-laws and all that stuff are insane. Graduation week should be spelled weak!!
No, you were right the first time, it is a source of conflict and you are only preaching conflict. Please stop.
Your neighbor and your enemy don't want you to view them in love, they want you to respect them by keeping your love beliefs to yourself.
I understand you are preaching conflict, hence you are creating conflict.
Does that not bother you at all, that everything you preach creates conflict?
Eric, I know little about the politics of the Bible!
I don't need to.
Because it's complete proof to me of its authenticity that I can (and have, so many times) debunked the major misconceptions people have thrown into the mix, by.......guess what?.....just like I did the Scriptures in question this time..........comparing the over-all context of the Bible to the interpretation of those few Scriptures. In addition to, and including, that little "e" that you're dismissing (yet tripping over).
Let me put it this way---------God is God, and He has the power to protect His written word.
AND if someone mistranslated or messed with any Scriptures so much that it made me disbelieve the Bible (yep, even the KJV version)........they would've had to have corrupted MOST of the Bible, not just a few Scriptures. They can try to re-write a few Scriptures, or the entire thing, but either way it will be detectable to those who've had Spiritual and studious confirmation of the Word.
Sorry, but no amount of persuasion is gonna make me doubt the Word.
Why do people call the bible the "Word" of God. The Word of God is Christ. The Bible is a collection of many books writen by men inspired by God. Confusion runs rampant in God's ecclesia.
Why do people call the bible the "Word" of God. The Word of God is Christ. The Bible is a collection of many books writen by men inspired by God. Confusion runs rampant in God's ecclesia.
Sword...at the risk of causing unintended contention I again feel the need to respond to your comments as well as those Brenda has shared. Although you have not provided the question mark at the end of your first statement, it does sound awfully similar to a question. Therefore, I will make a couple of general comments and then make an attempt to answer what I believe to be your question; namely, “Why do people call the bible the “Word” of God” (?)
For starters, with all due respect to her, I am certainly not in agreement with Brenda in regards to the King James Bible. I am afraid she has accepted a dangerous, untenable and somewhat unhealthy position of the Scriptures. Opposed to what she has stated as the lack of need to "know the politics of the Bible" I find it quite beneficial to know the history of the English translation of the Bible. Nevertheless, she certainly has the right to embrace such a position if she chooses to. I am at least encouraged to know that Brenda is embracing the Bible as the "Word of God"...something that seems to be absent from your own perspective Sword. This I say in spite of the fact that you spend a great amount of time loosely paraphrasing it and utilizing its language to teach/share your beliefs about God, Jesus and life to those who may find themselves following you…which by the way, I note that you have at least 35 followers on Hubpages. I point this out not to be mean spirited but to once again remind you that when we choose to speak about things of such weighty matters we ought to do so with great sobriety and tremendous caution.
The issue I take with your above comment is that you are speaking the truth but not the whole truth. Yes...Christ is the "Living Word". According to John 1:1 (NASB95) — 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Nevertheless, let us not be so short sighted as to miss the fact that the Bible is the "Written Word" of God. In fact, Jesus Himself, the Living Word, states in Luke 24:44–45 (NASB95) — 44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.
The Law, Prophets and Psalms (Writings) was a way of referring to the entirety of the Old Testament. It was this that Jesus opened their minds to understand. Therefore, Jesus says that the written form of the Old Testament is Scripture. In other instances, pertaining to some of these very Scriptures in the Old Testament, Jesus deals with some of the religious leaders of the day who wished to violate these Scriptures which he (Jesus) happened to refer to as "the word of God."
I’ve just selected a few verses but I encourage you to be a Berean and search the Scripture yourself ; feel free to study these in context.
Matthew 15:6 (NASB95) — 6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
Mark 7:13 (NASB95) — 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
John 10:35 (NASB95) — 35 “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
It should go without saying that the New Testament is also the Word of God “Scripture” but I will not leave it unsaid. One great example can be found in 2 Peter 2:16 where Peter is making some comments about the difficulty of some of the Apostle Paul’s letters. Peter states the following, “2 Peter 3:16 (NASB95) — 16 as also in all his (Paul’s) letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction”. Here Paul’s writings which were being written and passed to the various churches at the time Peter is writing this are placed on equal footing with the rest of “Scriptures” which is referring primarily to those writings already recognized as the “Word of God” …Law, Prophets and Psalms (Writings).
Yet, perhaps the most important thing to point out here in responding to your comment is that you are taking up the language of 2 Tim 3:16 but doing so with a lack of clear understanding. You are correct; the Bible is a collection of many books. In fact, it's made up of 66 books, written on 3 different continents, in three languages, by over 40 authors and over several centuries. However, if we are going to take up the language which Scripture uses of itself, as you have done (For instance, you clearly base your understanding of Jesus being the "Word" on the testimony of Scripture in 1 john and other places and you clearly base your understanding of how Scripture was recorded on the Biblical testimony found in 2 Tim 3:16.) then we need to do so with carefulness and consistency. Is it really true that the Bible was written by "Men inspired by God" as you have stated? On the surface, one would expect a dogmatic, blind and deceived Bible thumper like me (Sarcasm for those who have yet to have their coffee) to whole heartedly agree with this; however, it is here that I am suggesting that we be more precise in the manner in which we communicate about Scripture.
The danger here is in our propensity to simply regurgitate thoughts or beliefs for which we have exercised very little effort in fully understanding. When you use the term "Inspired" as you did above you are leaving the door open for an understanding that these men were stirred just as an artist or composer might be "inspired" today before producing a great work and they then wrote down their own personal thoughts about life and godliness. However, the Greek term used here and rendered “Inspired” in our English translations is saying much more. In fact, if you pay close attention, the passage says nothing about “Men” being “Inspired” but says that “Scripture” is “Inspired”.
2 Timothy 3:14–17 (NASB95) — 14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Furthermore, although I do not expect everyone to study and know the Greek language, it is worth pointing out that the term rendered “inspired” is the Greek word, “theopneustos” which literally means “God Breathed”. Paul has been speaking to Timothy about the profitability of Scripture, urging him to continue living out those things which he was taught and convinced of. If for no other reason Paul makes such a plea because in the Scripture we find salvation which is in none other than Christ himself. It is then that Paul undergirds this plea he has given Timothy by reminding him that this Scripture he is speaking of was not just a collection of books, not just a prized piece of literature, not just the opinions of man but actually the very “Word of God” breathed out by God, which gives them 9Scripture) unmatchable quality for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness. In short, the Bible (Scripture) is the very “Word of God” according to its own self-attestation….believe it or not, this is what the Bible claims.
It’s only when you get to 2 Peter 1:21 that you discover the process involved which did include the human authors. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
A good way to understand the doctrine of “Inspiration” is in recognizing the fact that 2 Timothy is teaching us that the “God Breathed” word is the product and men moved or superintended by the Holy Spirit is the process God chose to use. Yet, the men were not “Inspired” which should be understood as “breathed out” according to the Greek language, the Scripture was “inspired” which leaves us with the clear conclusion that the Scripture, The entirety of the Old Testament and the New testament. Are the “Word of God”.
In conclusion, I agree, “Confusion runs rampant in God's ecclesia” but I think much of it could be alleviated if we were slow to speak and quick to listen as James instructs us and if we spent more time searching the Scripture as the Bereans and studying to show ourselves approved.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Yes, scripture is the word of God, but the Word is Christ. You noticed that I did not add a ? mark, but yet you add "W" to what should not be added. The word as scripture puts it is scripture inspired by God. The Word as scripture puts it is Christ. When Christians call scripture "the Word of God", they rob our saviour and prince of peace this title given to Him by His and our Father. This creates confussion.
With all due respect Sword...though I appreciate your interest in being a champion for the great name of our Savior...I don't think this is the manner in which it is to be done. The term rendered "Word" in our English translations is simply the Greek word λόγος (logos) and is used in one form or another around 329 times in the Greek NT. Yes, it refers to Jesus in John 1 according to context which is why the translators help us with the distinguishing capital "W" but in other contexts it (logos) is rendered as "(w)ord, statement, account, message, and I could continue. The fact of the matter is that "In the beginning was the λόγος (logos)" according to John 1:1 and according to John 2:22 (NASB95) — 22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word (λόγος (logos)) which Jesus had spoken.
My desire is not to be argumentative for the sake of being so but to simply highlight the fact that our truth claims must be under-girded. Again, I appreciate your desire to be a champion for Christ but with such statements as:
"Why do people call the bible the "Word" of God. The Word of God is Christ. The Bible is a collection of many books written by men inspired by God."
I fear you are undermining the Scripture and potentially leading others to a view of Scripture which is far less that Jesus Himself held. Nevertheless, this is again just my perspective...take it or leave it but in either case I appreciate the conversation.
Do not fear me undermining Scripture. This has been going on since the RCC created its latin verssion of the bible, the protestant movement along with its thousands of different denominations today, I choose to leave it along with most of the doctrines in the institutional organization know today as the church and you are most welcome.
This one is just too clear. I mean how do Calvanists deal with this passage. Do the just discount Paul altogether? I mean I get that this is an instructional tutorial to Timothy involved with the Ephesians, and probably somewhat dictated by Paul rather than "in his own hand". But somehow it withstood the tests of the counsel of Nicea and the like.
We have to work hard to discount this and we have to focus on exclusion rather than inclusion which is not love, in order to come to any conclusion other than "all are saved" and some especially so.
I ran this through Biblegateway and hit about 6 versions there and they do not vary in importance.
Now Timothy is a preacher man in a foreign land, and Paul is filled with the Holy Spirit for sure and Timothy's mentor. Regardless of whether the letter is authentically Pauline and perhaps written much later, it does not change the fact that it is included as ministerial instructional material in the New Testament. Why? Well because it is some good stuff. If you be preaching to a bunch of heathen pagans who love to sin, this Epistle will help you. And therefor it is good and noble, and should be viewed as fine instruction. That which is good, meditate on and incorporate into your life.
Here I am told clearly "all". On what authority could I not understand that to mean "all".
Am I or my priests more worthy than Paul, and the Bible? Can a dogma or cannon make me read "all" to mean less than all?
The early church was battling both the Romans and the Jews, many of these would welcome any decree of a notion of universalism. So why would the religious politicians of the time included this passage? Well the conclusion is inescapable --- Truth.
What can I say Eric? It was this verse that woke me up.
My friend, here is the great deception: What must we Believe? We only must believe that if we believe or not, we are saved. If we believe that, then we can be the worst bastard sons of bitches in the world and still be saved.
The deception is that we must believe in what "they" believe we must believe in.
So your message is critical.
My church messages are not. They are of men. But before I was born, I was saved. The rest is Sunday School and Easter and Christmas parades. How fun.
I only need to know that in the end, the perfect power of love will win over death for us all. I dont see any deception in that. But the worst bastard sons of bitches is the one that creates beings for his purpose and pleasure knowng in full advance their eternal doom. He does so without mercy.
You have to choose. Jesus said in the bible that He is the way and the truth and no one comes to the father but through him. So those who choose Christ, will have eternal life.
Just like the apostles choose Christ (John 15:16)?
We are all created in the image of God and once we choose to follow Christ that is what he promised us.
Yes, you already said that, but did the Apostles choose Christ?
by haj33965 weeks ago
When God come How many people will be saved that are alive. the bible states only 144,000, that are alive will be save out the whole world. How many dead will be saved, the bible state a number that no man can number.
by Emmanue Marosi2 years ago
Christians all over the World claim that Jesus Christ, the Messiah, is the savior of the World and not just Christians. He died for the sins of Christians, atheists, pagans, Muslims, Jews, Buddhist, etc... An important...
by Davidsonofjesie5 years ago
If you believe in your heart there is no God,there is no right or wrong,there is no creator,no absolute truth,no moral authority,then you must believe that nothing turns into chemicals,and chemicals turn into...
by ElSeductor4 weeks ago
The reality is that we are alone in this eternal, dark, and cold universe. Why can't we accept this reality? Death is the end. There is no heaven, and there is no hell. We do not need religion in...
by Daniel Prideland3 years ago
I have read a number of views here from both Atheists and Believers especially with regards to starving children in Africa. First of all let me start by saying that I am African, born, bred and raised in Africa. When we...
by Alan3 years ago
When anyone, of whatever religious persuasion, holds thoroughly rigid views within the accepted norms of that religion, does it make for honesty and truth? Or deception and lies?Opening up one's mind to other points of...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.