A literal millennium refutated as error Very interesting to read about Dionysius of Antioch's refutation of a literal millenium as an error in the early church. This interpretation had been taught by Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, causing great division of the churches near Alexandria.
As it often happens with other modern trends of interpretation, some errors are not new.
I see you christian wrote: ... All under the banner of â€˜safetyâ€™ ? Safety from what? The governments are subservient to the governments and afraid to go against the scientists etc for fear how it will make them look... Now think about this, there has been no Consideration of the impact of all this shut down? The harm that it has and is causing , no commons sense and on top of all that they have basically brought in marshal law and criminalized gatherings of human beings? For a very very small percentage of deaths and thatâ€™s a fact..Iâ€™ll say it again...your trading all of that for a very small percentage of deaths...
Mike wrote: No singing allowed over fears that covid19 could be spread more easily that way. How about no breathing? Then the whole congregation would be real safe. And their government could say "we saved them all from the crisis"
Commendable exposition of truth The West has turned to her idols: statism, socialism and the welfare state, and the church has bowed to the same without a blink, thought or discernment. Thank you very much. May we be delivered from this evil tide that has come upon us and may many preachers open their eyes to an uncompromised biblical outlook instead of perpetuating blind platitudes with their sermons.
John UK wrote: Thanks .... It reminded me of a country in Asia where they will often say "the God" whereas we would just say God
Well, John, this opens into the realm of the theology of the Spirit in Scriptures, a very profitable study indeed.
Divine wisdom and essential knowledge of Greek is needed to decide renderings for the word spirit, say if it should have articles or capitalization, etc...
E.g. in Jh 4:24 the AV translators provided the verb is and used the article "a" not as deriding the deity status but to indicate the type of the divine essence, say not flesh and blood as it were.
Translation is never easy indeed, but this can be discerned when closely studying the text in Greek.
It has been my personal conviction for a long while that the church should make the knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, apologetics and doctrine or theology an essential part of the training of their young instead of a diet of bible 'stories', which can be read at home, but arrive nowhere regarding convincing faith in adult years.
After all, the Christian has only one culture that matters and defines our identity, this is our biblical heritage
Mike wrote: Here's the reasoning- he is not "a" spirit, as though he were one of many, since there are many spirits. He is spirit in its purest essence. "A spirit" suggests limitations, boundaries. Being one is of anything reduces him. This is just my thought, though. Not going to lose sleep over contrary thoughts.
Just an adition to the ongoing discussion.
The first words of John 4:24 in the Greek Textus Receptus actually run as:
* Ï€Î½ÎµuÎ¼Î± á½¹ Î¸Îµá½¹Ï‚ *
Ï€Î½ÎµuÎ¼Î± = spirit á½¹ = the (definite article) Î¸Îµá½¹Ï‚ = God
Which if literally transliterated would be, 'Spirit the God'
Without the definite article - á½¹ - then God should be rendered as 'god' without the capitalization.
It seems the words come as a statement rather than as a constructed sentence as the verb 'to be' is assumed.
Informative section However one ponders why the early church had to 'celebrate' a passover in the first place? It is obvious that as early as the first and second century Christians were seduced into the observance of not commanded special events, which perpetuated for many centuries after. This demostrate how early error gripped the church from its very beginnings.
Section of special interest These are informative chapters in Eusebius records about the leaders of the early churches in Antioch, Jerusalem, Bostra, and Rome, and about the ongoing discussions about the Pascha, against the claims of the Papacy and Easter.
Lurker, thanks for your polite, civil and refrained answer, yet your interpretation about my position taken regarding your speculations is totally out.
Sorry to say that, besides the useless creations of strawmen you present, your theories, queries and speculations strand outside the realm of Biblical correctness and revelation.
What you are tending to is not thinking outside the box of tradition, but thinking outside the box of revelation, which thing is dangareous. No desire to enter there. Some going about vain questions, says Scripture, stranded out from the faith.
Lurker, the harrasing tone of your remarks does not merit trust for further dialogue.
The Scriptures you mentioned did not contradict themselves, only they explained two different aspects of the same matter. You wanted to make them contradict to create an argument or better a strawman. There is no point wasting time here answering or elaborating on everyone of the fancies you chose to bring about in a 'moving the post' game.
You have sustained in the past heretical views with your reasonings and there is no intend here to feed conversation with the same.
The blood of Christ was real by which, the Scriptures say, Christ himself entered the heavens having obtained for us eternal redemption by it. You take it or leave it, but splitting hairs about it would hardly proceed from faith. What it does not proceed of faith is sin, says Scripture, so see by yourself if your argumentation proceeds from other intent than faith.
With this stated, there is hardly justification for debate to proceed on.
You may continue on if you wish reinventing the wheel regarding the work of redemption.
As Christ refused to engage, Luke 23:9 & 32, so it be.
Mike wrote: John 20:22. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, receive ye the Holy Ghost. Life from breath. Blood is price paid, but is not life. Without resurrection, still dead in sin.
Are we not confusing in one different operations? Say, the indwelling of the Holy Ghost is not the work of regeneration, and so forth. People here are grabbing at any Scripture for the lack a of a wholesome comprehension of the work consummated by Christ on our behalf. Yes, redemption is the payment, without which no life is available or given, but without blood shed there is no remission of sins, for which still we would be dead in our traspasses and sins.
Lurker, which blood is this mentioned in this text?
"... And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: For thou wast slain, and hast **redeemed us to God by thy blood** Out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation"
The blood proceeded from a lamb that had been *slain*. The type and the actual article are as vital. It is not the blood perse that makes the magical trick, but the *shedding* of this blood which makes it that by its meaning the shedding needed to be literal.
Better check again wrote: When you said "Scripture tells us that life is in the blood, not in the breath"...It simply is not true. Ezek 37:4 Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD.Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: Instead of speculation of intentions being your focus, maybe, just maybe consider the intention as being only one of "checking again" The accuracy of your statement instead of getting your feathers ruffled. Good day!
As suspected you would do. you are super imposing a spiritualized text to prove your other passages ignoring the sense.
About intentions it is safe to read between the lines. Luke 23:9 helps Bye
Lurker, look for the verse yourself. There are many. Bye
Better check again wrote: Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Job 33:4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
Sorry, it would be worth remembering that we are speaking about the unique life-giving redemptive value of Christ's offering, not about the origin of life in creatures which is what your texts point to.
Christ's death obtained eternal redemption, say eternal or spiritual life, your texts do not deal with this but they speak about the source of physical life in a creature.
Please, on another note, may we be reminded that frank dialogue is commendable, but covert comments under new monikers bring suspicious intend to mind as experience always has proved here before.
John UK wrote: I'm not sure if there is sufficient evidence either way to be certain about this, whereas great Reformation doctrines such as justification through faith alone are absolutely certain.
Well, it is a matter of terms rendered one way or the other. Of this there is quite certainty. Crucifixion is never implied for what it is in the law, say the OT; hanging is. The body of Christ was given as a victim offering, as his blood was shed and lifted up as the serpent in the desert.
Lurker, your insight is ingenious, however Scripture tells us that life is in the blood, not in the breath, and in the case of Christ his blood shed avails for sins, not his breath.
There was a need for the shedding of his blood, which comes typified by the slaying of the sacrificed victims, whose blood was poured before the animal was offered. Hebrews 9 and 10 detail this.
"Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."
Mike, perhaps the implaling of a victim comes more closely related to the hanging of the OT than to the steriotyped crucifixion.