Why Can't Men Believe what the Scriptures Say?

[EricH]

The problem with your study is that it based upon using other words as they are applied in other contexts and issues, and not according to the issue at hand. This is a common mistake made in hermeneutics: People will try to justify their use of one word by how it appears in other passages that speak to different issues and contexts.

Excellent point. The assumption is that because a word is used a certain way in a given context, it carries all nuances into every context. Word studies really help us to understand the semantic range of a word. Context helps us to narrow that range to determine meaning

[Emily~Anne]

'In his early career, according to both the Acts and his own letters, Paul was a zealous persecutor of Christians. Some scholars now believe he was part of a radical and sometimes violent faction of first-century Judaism known as the Shammaite Pharisees. The Shammaites, says Wright in What Saint Paul Really Said (1997), were followers of Shammai Ha-zaken, a Jerusalem sage who advocated a strict interpretation of Jewish law.

"Some scholars now believe" That was all I really had to read. "Some scholars also believe that Jesus had a wife and children. "Some scholars also believe that Jesus was a man only, and had no share in the divinity. Scholars believe a lot of things that are completely out of line with the Scriptures. Are you going to choose their "beliefs" over what the Bible says?

In Luke's words, Paul was a persecutor of the Christians. In Paul's own words he was given authority to bind up all who called on the name of the Lord. He arrested them and carried them away to prison; nothing more. Of course in his zeal for the law he persecuted believers, and he no doubt agreed with their executions, but there is absolutely no evidence from the Bible that he killed as much as a single person - ever.

Funny how the topic title is, "Why can't men believe what the Scriptures say?" Clearly you hold other's writings in higher regard than the Bible.

This brings a verse to mind:

1 Corinthians 3:18-33

18Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"; 20and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile." 21So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, 22whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future

[firehill]

Because there is a total misinterpretation of the word used for "head"! The word for "head" means, "source" or "origin" and best describes the relationship between God and Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ and the Church. God is the source of Christ. Christ is the source of the Church, and man (Adam) is the source of woman (Eve). This proper interpretation takes it out of the realm of debate and into the realm of TRUTH.

This is wrong because for starters, God is not the source of Christ. That implies that Jesus had a beginning, and was not eternally existent with the Father. Jesus as God, has no source, therefore, cannot be applied in comparison to man woman. Furthermore, to render the word "source" is inconsistent with the context. There may be other contexts where the word is used as "source" but that is not what Paul has in view here.

She doesn't mean 'source' in that sense ofcourse but with regards to the incarnation, God was the source! The Holy Spirit overcame the virgin Mary.

Again, source as used here would force a separation between who Jesus is and who God is. Jesus is God, and therfore, you are trying make something out of nothing. God the Father is not the source of Jesus in any context.

Ya know sometimes language is a barrier. The concevied idea of 'source as used here would force a seperation between who jesus is and who God is' belongs to you not FA and not I. Numerous scholars understand 'source' the same way I and FA do. Ofcourse God the father is not the source of Jesus in any context NOT even in 1 Co 11:3. Do you see the words 'God the father or the father is the head of Christ'? I don't but rather I read 'God is the head of Christ' and therefore I take it to mean the Godhead or the Trinity is the 'source' of Christ's being that all had a part in the salvation of humankind, the incarnation.

[firehill]

(All things are subjected under his feet not 'head.' We should be asking, why? I hope at least some can see the difference between the use of the two metaphors, 'feet' and 'head' here.)

Now, where are these related words used to mean 'authority' like the related words of arche?

From a related word study alone of kephale one can see how its meaning comes across as 'source'.

The problem with your study is that it based upon using other words as they are applied in other contexts and issues, and not according to the issue at hand. This is a common mistake made in hermeneutics: People will try to justify their use of one word by how it appears in other passages that speak to different issues and contexts. If you were demonstrating your position using parallel passages that speak to the same issue, that would be different. Furthermore, you are using Strongs which is not meant to be a stand alone resource. Most people, as you have here, completely misuse Strong's dictionary.

Being that kephale is never ever translated as 'authority' looking to the related word study then is meant to simply shed light on the menaing of the word just by comparing how it is used in other contexts. Related word studies can be a helpful tool in determing a word's meaning. I wasn't meaning for Strong's to be used as a stand alone resource. Maybe you're thinking of someone else. Really to draw all the seeming conclusions about 'my study' that you have is simply, ridiculous. Ask, don't assume.

Secondly, you completely botched the head/feet metphor used by Paul. The Father has declared that the entire created order is under Jesus' feet which is simply a restatement of Jesus' preeminence over the entire universe. It is nothing more than a simple hebraism denoting Jesus' rank in the universe.

We agree.

The Bible says that all things are under Jesus feet and that the He is the head of the Church.

Yes, he is head 'of' the church.

Notice the constrast. Jesus preeminence in the universe and Headship over the Church are pictured in similar fashion. Just as the entire created order is subordinate to Jesus, likewise He is head of the Church.

No I don't see or understand what you do regarding these statements and neither do numerous scholars.

In verse 23 this is highlighted by calling the church His body. The body is subordinate to the head. The head determines the actions of the rest of the Body.

This is your opinion. I don't see a head/body metaphor defined like this as you do and again neither do numerous scholars.

[firehill]

'In his early career, according to both the Acts and his own letters, Paul was a zealous persecutor of Christians. Some scholars now believe he was part of a radical and sometimes violent faction of first-century Judaism known as the Shammaite Pharisees. The Shammaites, says Wright in What Saint Paul Really Said (1997), were followers of Shammai Ha-zaken, a Jerusalem sage who advocated a strict interpretation of Jewish law.

"Some scholars now believe" That was all I really had to read. "Some scholars also believe that Jesus had a wife and children. "Some scholars also believe that Jesus was a man only, and had no share in the divinity. Scholars believe a lot of things that are completely out of line with the Scriptures. Are you going to choose their "beliefs" over what the Bible says?

In Luke's words, Paul was a persecutor of the Christians. In Paul's own words he was given authority to bind up all who called on the name of the Lord. He arrested them and carried them away to prison; nothing more. Of course in his zeal for the law he persecuted believers, and he no doubt agreed with their executions, but there is absolutely no evidence from the Bible that he killed as much as a single person - ever.

Actualy my first respons in regards to paul having killed anyone was based on somekind of memory I had of hearing or reading somewhere but did not remember actualy where. Thus all that you've said above I can agree with. I haven't studied a whole lot on Saul. I thought he had. It appears I was wrong. I have no problems with that but at the same time I do think it is of benefit to have some working knowledge of all the history that we can. That's all. I have no points of contention here really and neither do I have a desire to dive deeper into the persecuting acts of Saul at this time.

[firehill]

Acts 8:1

And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

Acts 22:4And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.

Acts 22:19And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee:

20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.

Thanks for providing those WhySoBlind.

[EricH]

(All things are subjected under his feet not 'head.' We should be asking, why? I hope at least some can see the difference between the use of the two metaphors, 'feet' and 'head' here.)

Now, where are these related words used to mean 'authority' like the related words of arche?

From a related word study alone of kephale one can see how its meaning comes across as 'source'.

The problem with your study is that it based upon using other words as they are applied in other contexts and issues, and not according to the issue at hand. This is a common mistake made in hermeneutics: People will try to justify their use of one word by how it appears in other passages that speak to different issues and contexts. If you were demonstrating your position using parallel passages that speak to the same issue, that would be different. Furthermore, you are using Strongs which is not meant to be a stand alone resource. Most people, as you have here, completely misuse Strong's dictionary.

Being that kephale is never ever translated as 'authority' looking to the related word study then is meant to simply shed light on the menaing of the word just by comparing how it is used in other contexts. Related word studies can be a helpful tool in determing a word's meaning. I wasn't meaning for Strong's to be used as a stand alone resource. Maybe you're thinking of someone else. Really to draw all the seeming conclusions about 'my study' that you have is simply, ridiculous. Ask, don't assume.

Secondly, you completely botched the head/feet metphor used by Paul. The Father has declared that the entire created order is under Jesus' feet which is simply a restatement of Jesus' preeminence over the entire universe. It is nothing more than a simple hebraism denoting Jesus' rank in the universe.

We agree.

The Bible says that all things are under Jesus feet and that the He is the head of the Church.

Yes, he is head 'of' the church.

Notice the constrast. Jesus preeminence in the universe and Headship over the Church are pictured in similar fashion. Just as the entire created order is subordinate to Jesus, likewise He is head of the Church.

No I don't see or understand what you do regarding these statements and neither do numerous scholars.

In verse 23 this is highlighted by calling the church His body. The body is subordinate to the head. The head determines the actions of the rest of the Body.

This is your opinion. I don't see a head/body metaphor defined like this as you do and again neither do numerous scholars.

But other numerous scholars agree with Shiloh. An appeal to numbers is not a sound logical argument

[firehill]

But other numerous scholars agree with Shiloh. An appeal to numbers is not a sound logical argument

I'm not making an appeal to numbers as an argument. I simply stated just what is. Many assumptions are made all too often. It's frustrating.

[Emily~Anne]

If the bible is so flawed we have to work this hard to figure out what it really means, then boy are we in trouble!

[Scarletprayers]

If the bible is so flawed we have to work this hard to figure out what it really means, then boy are we in trouble!

EA, you can say that again!