Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Christian Doctrine



Message

notmycity -> Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/26/2008 3:44:01 PM)

Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology.

Here are some terms used by “theologians”, but they are nowhere in Scripture.

Thoughts?



Ps103 -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/26/2008 3:53:55 PM)

"Bible" is not found in Scripture, either, but it is widely accepted a a term for "the book containing the Word of God."

I am not seeing a problem with the term "Trinity."

Not seeing a problem with the term "rapture," either--the problem comes with how one views the end times.



Stephanos -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/26/2008 4:24:07 PM)

Technically "Rapture" is found in the bible. Rapture comes from the Latin "raptus" which means to be "caught up" or "stolen away". 1st Thess 4:17, has the Greek word, "(h)arpagesometha" (transliterated of course...cant figure out how to get the greek to work on here), which also means "to catch or steal off". It is alot easier to use the Latin word for this idea rather than the greek word dont you think.

Is it wrong to use the language equivalent of a idea in the bible when speaking in a language not used in the original works of the bible? If using rapture is wrong to refer to the idea of "caught up", the using the English word "God" is wrong as well.



bgwill3 -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/26/2008 5:07:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephanos

Technically "Rapture" is found in the bible. Rapture comes from the Latin "raptus" which means to be "caught up" or "stolen away". 1st Thess 4:17, has the Greek word, "(h)arpagesometha" (transliterated of course...cant figure out how to get the greek to work on here), which also means "to catch or steal off". It is alot easier to use the Latin word for this idea rather than the greek word dont you think.

Is it wrong to use the language equivalent of a idea in the bible when speaking in a language not used in the original works of the bible? If using rapture is wrong to refer to the idea of "caught up", the using the English word "God" is wrong as well.


True, the word "rapture" is derived from the Latin translation of the Greek word for "caught up".

I don't think folks take issue with particular words, but rather with concepts or practices that are foreign to the Bible. If someone opposes the "rapture" or the "Trinity," properly defined, then it would better that he argue the points of the concepts, rather than the words themselves. As has already been remarked, the word "bible" is not to be found in the Bible. It is not valid to argue, on that point alone, that the concept--a collection of Scriptures as the basis of faith--is foreign to the Bible.



MrFribbles -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/26/2008 7:31:24 PM)

If we want to get exceptionally technical, then we must abandon all our English bibles, since English words are found nowhere in the original manuscripts (we assume - all the original manuscripts are, as far as we know, lost to us). At the very least, we should change the book of James to Jacob, change Jesus' name to Joshua, and start calling Ecclesiastes Qoheleth instead (actually, I'm kind of in favor of that last one... Qoheleth just sounds cool!).
There's nothing prohibiting forming new words to explain theological concept - unless there's a Scripture you'd like to bring to bear on the subject?



BerianAardvark -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/27/2008 1:16:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephanos

1st Thess 4:17, has the Greek word, "(h)arpagesometha" (transliterated of course...cant figure out how to get the greek to work on here), which also means "to catch or steal off". It is alot easier to use the Latin word for this idea rather than the greek word dont you think.

Is it wrong to use the language equivalent of a idea in the bible when speaking in a language not used in the original works of the bible? If using rapture is wrong to refer to the idea of "caught up", the using the English word "God" is wrong as well.


arpagesometha from

ἁρπάζω harpazō
Thayer Definition:
1) to seize, carry off by force
2) to seize on, claim for one’s self eagerly
3) to snatch out or away
Part of Speech: verb

Copy and paste works just fine. [;)]

1Th 4:17 επειτα THEN ημεις WE οι THE ζωντες LIVING οι WHO περιλειπομενοι REMAIN, αμαTOGETHER συν WITH αυτοις THEM αρπαγησομεθα SHALL BE CAUGHT AWAY εν IN "THE" νεφελαις CLOUDS εις FOR "THE" απαντησιν MEETING τουOF THE κυριου LORD εις IN "THE" αερα AIR; και AND ουτως THUS παντοτε ALWAYS συν WITH "THE" κυριω LORD εσομεθαWE SHALL BE.

Hopefully I didn't trim any of the Greek letters when I cut the Strong's numbers out of the cut and paste from my interlinear.

αρπαγησομεθα is how ἁρπάζω looks conjugated in the Second Future tense, Passive Voice, Indicative Mood. (and you thought learning to conjugate English verbs was fun.) [8|]

Tim



Stephanos -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/27/2008 1:34:25 AM)

Thanks...For some reason the copy and paste did not work from my Bible Study Software. Oh well..



GrahamCracker -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/27/2008 4:41:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: notmycity

Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology.

Here are some terms used by “theologians”, but they are nowhere in Scripture.

Thoughts?


Your fallacy is that you have determined that only certain kinds of information make a doctrine biblical or sound. In your case, the presence or absence of a certain term or label is one of your deciding factors for the acceptance or denial of a doctrine.



pastor79553 -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/29/2008 10:43:02 PM)

I don't give much credit to the writtings of Paul, but as for the word trinity didn't have meaning until the Council of Nicaea when most church doctrine was dicided upon.



MrFribbles -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/29/2008 11:01:44 PM)

quote:

I don't give much credit to the writtings of Paul


What do you base this on?



pastor79553 -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/29/2008 11:11:47 PM)

quote:

What do you base this on?

Go to google search and type in "Council of Nicaea". It will give you the details of what was discussed, why the council was convened, and much more. As for not giving much credit to the writtings of Paul? Because, everything that Jesus taught Paul tried to do away with. Example: Jesus told the rich young man in Matt. 19. 16-22 that to inherit eternal life he had to obey the commandments, but Paul in his writtings all but did away with the law.



MrFribbles -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/30/2008 12:16:18 AM)

quote:

As for not giving much credit to the writtings of Paul? Because, everything that Jesus taught Paul tried to do away with. Example: Jesus told the rich young man in Matt. 19. 16-22 that to inherit eternal life he had to obey the commandments, but Paul in his writtings all but did away with the law.


I'm guessing you don't give much credit to the teachings of Acts, 1-3 John, Hebrews, James or 1 and 2 Peter as well?



pastor79553 -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/30/2008 7:37:03 AM)

I give credit to any piece of writing that speaks the truth concerning GOD; not as I percieve truth, but as it comes from GOD. Any one who says they only worship the ONE, True, and Living GOD, but preaches things contrary is either a lier, or has been greatly decieved. At the Council of Nicaea many " GOD inspired " books were kept out of the Bible as we know it. There were verses that were changed, or left out completely; this is evidant from the MANY different translations that we have today. Why would I listen to the things said at a council convened by a pagan? ( I say " pagan " because he tried to fuse his mothers pagan worship with Christainity. ) There is vast evidences for and against what I have said. I only ask you to pray for guidance and truth as it comes form the Creator.



benelchi -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/30/2008 7:49:38 AM)

quote:

There is vast evidences for and against what I have said. I only ask you to pray for guidance and truth as it comes form the Creator.


Well, you got that last part half right, there really is vast amount of evidence against what you have said.



LBolt -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/30/2008 10:33:56 AM)

Pastor 79553, if study a little more, you'll see Paul teachings line up perfectly with Messiah's teaching. The last few posts in the law thread deal with this indirectly. I said it once before that in that time period Oral Law was 'king' and Messiah and Paul refuted it (those aspects that was contrary to the Word of God) ferverently.



ta_mosquito -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/30/2008 10:45:36 AM)

MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE

pastor79553 -

Welcome to Forums!

We do not require that you be an orthodox Christian to be a member of the site, but we do require that you respect our Terms of Service, especially TOS #15.

You may want to read our Range of Doctrine and our Statement of Faith.

Repeated statements against these documents and TOS 15 will result in disciplinary action against your account here.

Thank you!

Tricia
Forums Moderator

Please do not reply to this message within the forums or chat.

Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.

Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.



notmycity -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/30/2008 3:58:27 PM)

Here's another we won't find in Scripture: "kinsman redeemer".

Oh, and could someone please show me in Scripture where we are to "invite Jesus into our heart"?

Thank you.



MrFribbles -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/30/2008 4:09:59 PM)

quote:

Here's another we won't find in Scripture: "kinsman redeemer".


Seriously? What say you to Ruth 2:20 and 3:9?


quote:

Oh, and could someone please show me in Scripture where we are to "invite Jesus into our heart"?


It's a figure of speech. Can you show me in Scripture where those are forbidden?



notmycity -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/30/2008 4:18:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles

quote:

Here's another we won't find in Scripture: "kinsman redeemer".


Seriously? What say you to Ruth 2:20 and 3:9?


quote:

Oh, and could someone please show me in Scripture where we are to "invite Jesus into our heart"?


It's a figure of speech. Can you show me in Scripture where those are forbidden?


Forgive me, I should have been more specific. I meant to say that Christ is not called a “kinsman redeemer” in Scripture. This is a teaching that is added to Scripture by saying that Boaz and Ruth “[point to Christ and the church]”. The story is wonderful alone without some “scholar” looking for some imagined hidden meaning.

What about “inviting Jesus into your heart”? Can anyone show me that in Scripture please?



MrFribbles -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/30/2008 4:21:30 PM)

quote:

Forgive me, I should have been more specific. I meant to say that Christ is not called a “kinsman redeemer” in Scripture. This is a teaching that is added to Scripture by saying that Boaz and Ruth “[point to Christ and the church]”. The story is wonderful alone without some “scholar” looking for some imagined hidden meaning.


Do you believe Genesis 3:15 refers to Christ?

quote:

What about “inviting Jesus into your heart”? Can anyone show me that in Scripture please?


You ignored my point. It's a figure of speech. Where in Scripture does it say we must refer to theological ideas only in ways that are found in Scripture, verbatim?



bgwill3 -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/30/2008 4:28:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles

quote:

Here's another we won't find in Scripture: "kinsman redeemer".


Seriously? What say you to Ruth 2:20 and 3:9?


quote:

Oh, and could someone please show me in Scripture where we are to "invite Jesus into our heart"?


It's a figure of speech. Can you show me in Scripture where those are forbidden?


True, concerning kinsman redeemer. As far as "inviting Jesus into your heart", some cite Revelation 3:20. In my opinion, this is a misunderstanding of the context of Revelation 3; Jesus was knocking at the door of the Laodicean church, not at the heart of the individual believer.

We aren't instructed to "ask Jesus to come in" to our hearts. We are told that the one who confesses that Jesus is Lord and believes the gospel message (that God raised him from the dead) is saved. We know that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith (Eph. 3:17), and that the individual believer is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19), and that the local assembly collectively is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16).

The ones who would tell someone to "ask Jesus to come in" might offer Rev. 3:20 for basis, but that would take the passage out of context, in my opinion. It is clear from Scripture that the Holy Spirit indwells the believer. But we are no where told to invite him in (unless I am missing something).



notmycity -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/30/2008 4:31:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles

quote:

Forgive me, I should have been more specific. I meant to say that Christ is not called a “kinsman redeemer” in Scripture. This is a teaching that is added to Scripture by saying that Boaz and Ruth “[point to Christ and the church]”. The story is wonderful alone without some “scholar” looking for some imagined hidden meaning.


Do you believe Genesis 3:15 refers to Christ?

quote:

What about “inviting Jesus into your heart”? Can anyone show me that in Scripture please?


You ignored my point. It's a figure of speech. Where in Scripture does it say we must refer to theological ideas only in ways that are found in Scripture, verbatim?


Genesis 3:15 is prophecy, not the story of Boaz and Ruth. Apples and oranges.

Gen 3:15
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
(KJV)

“Where in Scripture does it say we must refer to theological ideas only in ways that are found in Scripture”?

Answer:

Prov 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Seems very serious to me.



benelchi -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/30/2008 4:34:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: notmycity

Here's another we won't find in Scripture: "kinsman redeemer".

Oh, and could someone please show me in Scripture where we are to "invite Jesus into our heart"?

Thank you.



Until you read the book of Ruth.



bgwill3 -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/30/2008 4:42:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles

quote:

Forgive me, I should have been more specific. I meant to say that Christ is not called a “kinsman redeemer” in Scripture. This is a teaching that is added to Scripture by saying that Boaz and Ruth “[point to Christ and the church]”. The story is wonderful alone without some “scholar” looking for some imagined hidden meaning.


Do you believe Genesis 3:15 refers to Christ?

quote:

What about “inviting Jesus into your heart”? Can anyone show me that in Scripture please?


You ignored my point. It's a figure of speech. Where in Scripture does it say we must refer to theological ideas only in ways that are found in Scripture, verbatim?


As far as "inviting Jesus into your heart," the only trouble with that concept is that, in my experience, some people are taught that when they sin (presumably a persisting habitual sin), Jesus evacuates the premises, and they have to invite him back.

Again, only speaking from my own experience, I think that anyone who instructs unbelievers to "invite Jesus into your heart" should likewise teach them the true doctrines of the faith, and particularly avoid even the implication that Jesus will leave a believer's heart (1 John 1:9; 2:1-2; Hebrews 13:5-6; Matthew 28:20).



MrFribbles -> RE: Trinity, rapture and other unscriptural terminology. (6/30/2008 4:58:32 PM)

quote:

As far as "inviting Jesus into your heart," the only trouble with that concept is that, in my experience, some people are taught that when they sin (presumably a persisting habitual sin), Jesus evacuates the premises, and they have to invite him back.


That's a problem with their understanding in general, not the phrase "inviting Jesus into your heart." But I agree with the rest of your post, that would be a problem for that person, and good, biblical teaching is needed for every believer to grow and mature!


---------

quote:

Genesis 3:15 is prophecy, not the story of Boaz and Ruth. Apples and oranges.


So you don't think God could possibly have another, deeper meaning behind a biblical narrative?
I guess someone should tell the author of Hebrews to stop referencing what happened at Kadesh-Barnea, then...

quote:

Prov 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.


If you take this literally, then

quote:

Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


this should never have been written! If it was written in Proverbs that no words should be added, then that should have been it - unless God's truth didn't "turn on" until Revelation?
Rather, I think that verse is teaching that if something goes against (either by addition or subtraction) the teaching of Scripture, it must not be accepted! Notice I said "the teaching," not "the individual words and phrases." Again, if we hold, as you attest, that the individual words are important, then you must, must only use the original Greek and Hebrew, or you are adding English words to Scripture.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI