a buffet line of Bible questions

at 10/03/09 11:15AM
Take a stab at any or all of these:

1) How do you understand the command to "be subject to the governing authorities" (Rom. 13.1)? In particular, which governing authorities does this principle apply to?

2) Do Paul's statements in the beginning verses of 1st Corinthians 7 (vss. 1-9 especially) that it is better to remain single, if you're blessed with the self-control to do that, provide a principle which transcends that period of persecution? If so, is that a change from the situation in the Garden of Eden?

3) In John 14.2-3, Jesus tells His apostles that "In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also." Soon afterward (14.22-23), "Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, 'Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?' Jesus answered him, If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.'" (Quotations from ESV.) Keeping the larger context of these quotations in mind, is Jesus referring in vss. 2-3 to: a) a home that will be available after the second coming, b) a spiritual relationship that is available now, or c) a combination of the two?

So I compiled a list of NT passages that praise (or direct people to praise) the Holy Spirit.

at 05/08/09 9:41PM
Here's what I came up with:















Thoughts? Did I miss any?
  • thoughts
    i hope to respond to this and previous posts more fully soon.
    by thoughts at 05/08/09 9:41PM
  • engelishgentleman
    ...I'm sure I missing something obvious...but...I'm confused???
    by engelishgentleman at 05/08/09 10:10PM
  • jabberwock
    If you're referring to the Holy Spirit specifically, you are correct. We see discussion of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but not of praise.
    by jabberwock at 05/09/09 7:36AM

rapid-fire questions

at 04/15/09 11:35PM
Since I don't have time to delve into any of these topics right now, I'm just throwing out some questions for you to consider at discuss at your leisure...then I hope to have more time after the semester ends.

So... (And this one could go different directions)

Is it clear that early Christians met on the first day of the week to eat the Lord's Supper? Perhaps this is a better question: when did early Christians have worship assemblies, and for what purpose? Use Scripture carefully to support your answer.
  • dbsmelser
    I’ll bite on the second form of your query. First part of it: When did they have (simply) assemblies? Acts 2, the Day of Pentecost, was on a Sunday. They also continued meeting on some kind of daily basis (2:46a), whether as a whole or not is not evident. But after the Day of Pentecost, Luke (author of Acts) says nothing about what days of the week various events happened on. The day of the week Peter and John heal the lame man: Luke doesn’t bother to begin the story, “And on the fourth(?) day of the week…” The day of the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira? Not a word. The day the Sadducees jailed the apostles? Silence. What day was it when the widows’ complaint surfaced? Or when Stephen was tried? When Philip taught the Eunuch? When the Antioch church laid hands on Paul and Barnabas, sending them out on their Journey? No info from Luke for any of those things.

    Now, in his gospel, Luke frequently mentioned the day if it were the Sabbath, because there was a reason for mentioning it in those cases: the reader needed that info to understand the objection of the Pharisees. Or in Acts, he does so in cases of Paul visiting the synagogue (e.g. 13:14, 42-44). He mentions the day if it’s important, if it has purpose. But generally, in Luke and Acts, Luke doesn’t bother telling us the day of the week - - just no reason to.

    Finally though, we come to 20:7, and suddenly Luke decides to again tell us the day of the week on which an event happened: the gathering of Christians to break bread on the first day of the week. What’s the importance of telling us which day it was? Judging from his writing, there must be a reason. Well, we have there an example of Christians meeting on Sunday for the Lord’s Supper, and we know (from 1 Cor. 11:26) that Supper was to be a repetitive practice. We also know (from Heb 10:25) that their gatherings were regular and repetitive.

    Recall the Day of Pentecost was a Sunday. And then we recall that the first day Jesus appeared to His disciples was a Sunday. And so was the second day He appeared to them (a week later, when Thomas was present). Perhaps a trend being established? And really, all that followed was a result of His resurrection on that first appearance Sunday: His resurrection, the basis of our faith, the reason we gather. All of that establishes a pattern in my mind, and it did to early Christians as well, since historically, it is clear they met on Sundays for years to come.
    by dbsmelser at 04/17/09 1:27AM
  • dbsmelser
    “For what purpose?” – Luke says “to break bread.” And so that’s the only purpose I would bind. If that’s all we were to do together on a given Sunday, I would have no scriptural objection. But obviously, Christians do other things from time to time in their assemblies in scripture. Are they all worship? No. Are some of them worship? Yes. How would an early Christian have replied if you asked “Do you do the five acts of worship on Sunday?” Probably something like: “…..huh?” I prefer to refer to our assemblies as, well, assemblies. That, not “worship services” or “worship assemblies”, is the NT term, and they did numerous things in those assemblies.
    by dbsmelser at 04/17/09 1:27AM

topical diversion

at 04/09/09 11:57PM
Is the gift of tongues obsolete? Discuss WITHOUT USING 1 CORINTHIANS 13 as the basis of your proof. Thank you. :)
  • engelishgentleman
    LOL!
    by engelishgentleman at 04/10/09 6:43AM
  • engelishgentleman
    Well, first, may I presume that by "obsolete," you actually mean "extinct," - that is, that no one has said gift anymore? That's usually what gets debated, from what I understand...
    by engelishgentleman at 04/10/09 6:44AM
  • jabberwock
    I would go the "miraculous spiritual gifts were given to confirm the word" route from Mark 16:20 and Hebrews 2:3-4. I would then point out that the gospel has been delivered (2 Peter 1:3, Jude 3), so there is nothing left to confirm (or impart, for that matter). Notice also that Paul in 2 Corinthians 3 describes his own era as a transitional time, using similar language to The Passage That Must Not Be Named.
    by jabberwock at 04/10/09 7:00AM
  • engelishgentleman
    Personally, I don't know that it is possible to prove in any kind of miraculous gift is no longer around (at least excluding 1 Corinthians 13...)...

    In fact I am bothered when I hear people asserting something along the lines of "God doesn't work by miracles anymore," since I'm not sure the Bible affirms that assertion. I do think we might make a case for superfluity of miraculous gifts (like those in the 1st century) today: if their purpose has been met, they are no longer needed. They provided evidence to affirm that those who preached the new covenant had God's authority; once done and recorded, they continue to provide evidence, and need not be done again.

    If there are claims of tongue-speaking, I would say the burden of proof rests with someone who wants to claim to have a miraculous gift. The Biblical miracles seem to be pretty unambiguous - the people - in large numbers - who saw them recognized that they were miracles without difficulty. In this area, of special relevance is the fact that the people in Acts 2 all recognized actual languages being spoken. And they not only recognized the tongues as actual languages, but they also recognized that there was something incredible or amazing about these men speaking these languages (Acts 2:7-8, 12). If someone claims to speak tongues, I think it's his responsibility to prove it, not my responsibility to prove he doesn't have it.
    by engelishgentleman at 04/10/09 7:07AM
  • engelishgentleman
    However, there was a sermon by Phil Roberts that I listened to a while back, about miracles, that was outstanding, and I'll try to track it down and see what it would contribute...
    by engelishgentleman at 04/10/09 7:08AM
  • engelishgentleman
    No one has responded to this thought question... Are you, Mr Thoughts, going to share yourself?
    by engelishgentleman at 04/15/09 3:21PM
  • dbsmelser
    A bit late chiming in here, but I'll agree with at least one line of the English gentleman :), that I too fail to see any Biblical confirmation that miracles have ceased. Now, performing miracles through men (what the NT refers to as spiritual gifts) is a different matter, as Paul discusses their temporary nature in Firs--- ...oops, I have to shut up at that point, as per your rules. :)

    Outside of the unmentionable passage, there is perhaps Zechariah 13 to consider. We read that in the period when a fountain would be opened for sin, that God would remove prophets from the land, and that if anyone did still prophesy, even his parents should say, "You shall not live, for you have spoken falsely in the name of the Lord."
    by dbsmelser at 04/18/09 12:19PM

The Crucifixion

at 02/22/09 4:06PM
To what extent is it necessary/helpful/legitimate to supplement the Biblical account of the Crucifixion with outside details about the suffering it would have involved?
  • engelishgentleman
    Hehe. Good question. Sometimes information the physical suffering of Jesus may be helpful, simply because people won't really know WHAT "crucifixion" means.

    Beyond that...well, I think people today WAAAAAAAYYY overemphasize the physical suffering of Jesus. Yes, I realize that might make me a heretic...but I just don't see that in the Bible. The passages that discuss the crucifixion, or that talk about the significance of Jesus' sacrifice, simply don't emphasize Jesus' physical suffering the way I often see people doing. It does matter, to be sure...but I think there's a great deal to the crucifixion than the suffering that I usually have seen emphasized (the culmination of the whole OT sacrificial system, for example, or the inauguration of a new covenant, for example, that I see the Bible having more to say about than about the suffering).
    by engelishgentleman at 02/22/09 6:55PM
  • justcallmejoe
    I feel like the Bible everywhere treats death as a greater evil than suffering. Jesus' death was reversed, but his suffering wasn't, right? And we're promised to have our death undone, but our suffering can't be undone, just rewarded. IDK I guess since death is treated as the ultimate evil in the bible it seems like the death is a lot more significant.

    I feel like a tendency to treat suffering/pain as a greater evil than death is symptomatic of the mixed-up ethics of our time that shows itself in a lot of ways. (Like people wanting to screen children for disorders that would make them suffer, because they feel like the kid would be better off aborted than living to suffer.) Maybe a miniature way is in people tending to maximize the significance of Jesus' physical pain relative to the importance of Jesus' death.
    by justcallmejoe at 02/22/09 9:35PM
  • justcallmejoe
    i wasted a lot of words on that ramble
    by justcallmejoe at 02/22/09 9:35PM
  • ward
    I wonder whether the details of the suffering is omitted because the Bible writers are trying to minimize it or because the original audiences knew all of those details because they saw scourging and crucifixion on a fairly regular basis. The answer to that question probably goes a long way to answering your question.
    by ward at 02/22/09 9:52PM
  • dbsmelser
    Really good comments above. Okay, maybe I wouldn't put as many A's in WAY .... actually I'd probably be satisfied with simply "overemphasize" minus any "way" at all. :) But still. At any rate, Joe, your comment is great...not a ramble...and gives reason to english's point.

    Having agreed with those things, that the death is more significant than the suffering and we ought to focus in accord with that, I'd still say the suffering is significant (not that you guys would differ on that). Confident that the facts of His death were in fact Divinely designed, it's meaningful that He wasn't painlessly poisoned like Socrates, or even quickly beheaded like Paul. A miserable, excruciating method was in the design.

    That being the case, I think it's like any other biblical subject. There's no urgent necessity to use outside sources to gain further understanding - but like so many other things, additional info from outside does enhance our understanding of what happened. And that is surely a good thing.
    by dbsmelser at 02/23/09 12:26AM
  • engelishgentleman
    Hyperbole, good sir, hyperbole. :-) Your comments were quite good.
    by engelishgentleman at 02/23/09 7:52AM
  • thoughts
    nathan, i wonder whether the importance of that issue is hinted at elsewhere in the n.t. as authors refer to the physical or spiritual nature of the crucifixion.
    by thoughts at 02/23/09 8:17PM
  • thoughts
    and jonathan gets at that idea in claiming that other passages emphasize the spiritual siginificance of the crucifixion over the physical.
    by thoughts at 02/23/09 8:19PM
  • thoughts
    christ's suffering was extreme, no doubt about it, and that shows us how far he was willing to go so that he could redeem us. it also shows us how much physical suffering we should be willing to endure for him. i have no problem with making those points when we study the crucifixion. but i am convinced that those points are not the main issues of jesus' crucifixion. not to be callous, but others have suffered excruciating deaths...we don't worship them. we lose so much of the significance of the cross when we reduce it to being purely physical.
    by thoughts at 02/23/09 8:27PM
  • thoughts
    more to come on this when i get time.... meanwhile, feel free to add further thoughts.
    by thoughts at 02/23/09 9:19PM
  • herebedragons
    "We lose so much of the significance of the cross when we reduce it to being purely physical." AMEN! I'm guessing we were probably going through similar thought processes during last Sunday's Bible class. :)
    by herebedragons at 02/27/09 8:53AM
  • engelishgentleman
    I just noticed that Acts 1:3 refers to Jesus' suffering INSTEAD of his death...interesting...
    by engelishgentleman at 03/05/09 6:36AM