Search results

I think it matters. If I tell my wife to grab something from the store, I don't mean for my son to go grab something from the store. But I do mean for him to know what's going on. Likewise, if God tells Israel to offer sacrifices, that doesn't necessarily mean we should offer sacrifices...

So it's like when I talk to my wife, but my son is standing nearby and I want him to hear what I'm saying? You know... I think that still puts us in the category of FOR us rather than TO us. :IDK:

So then the whole Bible isn't written to us? Leviticus is written to the Levites?

Except everyone does.

You say so, but I bet you haven't been making the required trespass sacrifices. Or... what if I like a little fat on the edges of my ribeye? Lev 3:17 It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.

I'm sure Ms. Lucille McGillicuddy would have wanted you to have it.

I haven't dismissed it. But I do see a problem. If you want to retain Leviticus 18, don't you also have to retain Leviticus 1-7? If not, why not?

But only the New Testament, right? Nobody ever seems to want the Old Testament.

The dictionary definition you copy/pasted suggests otherwise. It gives this word (φανερόω) a meaning beyond the normal sense one would expect based on the root and Attic Greek. It also gives it different meanings in different books of the Bible, suggesting that Paul uses the word differently...

I didn't say anything about the Trinity there. You're reading something into my words that isn't there.

You lost me at Bullinger. Bullinger is at best an idiot and at worst someone trying to subvert Christians.

Explain manifestation. Do you mean φανερόω? (the word usually translated as manifest) Or can you put your own definition on that word? Nature and Substance are both poor words to describe God. Nature in the Bible pretty much always describes the worst attributes of man. Substance requires...

I'm not sure most Trinitarians would count me among them. On the hand, I do believe in the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit, and the Word. Wait... that's 4? But really it's two sets of two: Father and Son makes one coherent metaphor Spirit and Word makes another coherent metaphor Somehow...

I guess I didn't do a good enough job of explaining. Christians (individually) are a different thing from Christians (corporately). One of them DOES contain all the fulness of the Godhead, while the other does not.

Uh... no? πλήρωμα still means "all the contents." The context in Colossians still dictates that what is in view is refuting some philosophical idea from the 1st century: Colossians 2: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the...

F2F quoted a creed on page 1... but I think all it proved was that word-salad has been around a looooong time. I suspect that we would have about as much agreement on what the official formulation means as we do on what the Bible means.

Are you the fiddle or the guitar?

You're giving me too much credit - there are no original thoughts from me there. That answer was the product of studying. The clear answer is that would mean that Christians have the fulness of God in them. I believe that statement to be true. But... maybe not true in the sense you intended...

"Fulness" does directly suggest that. There were those in the early church who taught that Jesus was the embodiment of just one aspect of God (usually xristos - anointing). The heretic Simon Magus claimed to be such an incarnation of an aspect of God (exousia - power). Colossians' claim that...

A question - how many of these scholars are Protestant? Catholic? Orthodox? I suspect... they're Protestant, and their faith, being built on the Bible, was shaken when they started to discover some problems with the Bible.