I received this devo today and concur wholeheartedly. Too many people are believing what they hear instead of what they know. Some have no idea why they believe what they believe. Some believe because it suits their purposes. Some just go with the flow. I call it easy believism.
Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming." Ephesians 4:14 (NIV).
by Tracie Miles I was thrilled to hear the good news. I had a bad case of winter blues, and the television weatherman had forecasted unusually warm spring-like days for the entire week. However, as I was driving to church that evening, I heard quite a different forecast on the radio. The announcer predicted cold days ahead; highs in the forties, and rain.What happened to the amazing forecast that the TV weatherman had predicted? I felt my spirit drop as I thought about yet another cold week to endure. Immediately I shared my disappointment with my husband and friends, even convincing them that the weather forecast had obviously changed.But as I watched TV later that evening, the weatherman was predicting sunny weather once again. Beautiful days, mid-seventies, with the possibility of breaking a record high.What?! I was so confused. I finally determined that the radio must have been playing the wrong forecast by accident. Somehow, I think the wrong buttons had been pushed, and the wrong information was sent out over the air for thousands of people to hear…if they had heard the television forecast too, they were surely as perplexed as I was.I had heard information that contradicted what I knew to be true, but since it seemed to be from a trustworthy source, I readily believed it. I even shared that information with friends and family, only later to realize that I had been misled and misinformed.In the same way, today's culture does an excellent job of sending us wrong information, misleading us about right and wrong, and convincing us that their opinion is accurate.Take tolerance, for example. The term "tolerance" seems to imply, by today's standards, that anything and everything is morally equivalent. Society tries to convince people that the truth is relative, open for interpretation, and apt to be changed if anyone wants it to be different.
I was thrilled to hear the good news. I had a bad case of winter blues, and the television weatherman had forecasted unusually warm spring-like days for the entire week. However, as I was driving to church that evening, I heard quite a different forecast on the radio. The announcer predicted cold days ahead; highs in the forties, and rain.What happened to the amazing forecast that the TV weatherman had predicted? I felt my spirit drop as I thought about yet another cold week to endure. Immediately I shared my disappointment with my husband and friends, even convincing them that the weather forecast had obviously changed.But as I watched TV later that evening, the weatherman was predicting sunny weather once again. Beautiful days, mid-seventies, with the possibility of breaking a record high.What?! I was so confused. I finally determined that the radio must have been playing the wrong forecast by accident. Somehow, I think the wrong buttons had been pushed, and the wrong information was sent out over the air for thousands of people to hear…if they had heard the television forecast too, they were surely as perplexed as I was.I had heard information that contradicted what I knew to be true, but since it seemed to be from a trustworthy source, I readily believed it. I even shared that information with friends and family, only later to realize that I had been misled and misinformed.In the same way, today's culture does an excellent job of sending us wrong information, misleading us about right and wrong, and convincing us that their opinion is accurate.Take tolerance, for example. The term "tolerance" seems to imply, by today's standards, that anything and everything is morally equivalent. Society tries to convince people that the truth is relative, open for interpretation, and apt to be changed if anyone wants it to be different.
With this in mind, and due to the fact that there is a smorgasbord of beliefs to choose from, it is imperative that Christians stay keenly aware of whether or not we are believing what we know, versus believing what we hear.The Bible clearly states that God set moral laws for His people, and the outline of what is right and wrong is written with great clarity. Knowing that, do we allow ourselves to be swayed by information that does not line up with God's Word? Do we follow the crowd, even when it is operating on inaccurate information? Do we act on questionable truths, just because it seems that everyone else believes it to be true?As believers, we have the incredible responsibility of being sure that we place what the Bible says over what well-intentioned (even trustworthy or respected) people may say. If we doubt that the Bible is the one absolute truth, what other source of truth are we looking to?1 Thessalonian 5:21 says, "Don't suppress the Spirit, and don't stifle those who have a word from the Master. On the other hand, don't be gullible. Check out everything, and keep only what's good. Throw out anything tainted with evil" (MSG). The thing that is good, is what is written in The Bible – the inspired Word of God.If you ever question whether or not something you hear is true, and before you share it with others who could be influenced by your statements, check it out against God's Word. The truth will be confirmed in the scriptures, and that is a source you can believe in.
I hope you are not trying to say that if I doubt the weatherman's report that I should check with the Bible to be sure. I don't mean to take it literally but I can see how some people in this world take things literally when one reads something like this and one could easily understand what I just said in the first sentence. But I have to ask just in case.
No one sees the irony here?
~Zoo
KFC, there is a book I'd recommend to you - The Jesus Dynasty by James Tabor. It's a very thoughtful and fascinating assessment of the historical Jesus, mostly based on the scriptures themselves. It really helped me undersand how and why Christianity is what it is, for lack of a better phrase.
The reason I think it would be of interest is that Paul took just the opposite approach: Believe what you hear, not what you know.
Ha! Isn't this something that we all can relate to at one time or another?
Yes, the mass media is what most influences people's behavior and mentality and shapes their social habits. It provides not only information but formation and most of it ain't good.
KFC,
We agree the Holy Bible teaches absolute truth.
It's interesting that in 1Timothy 3:15, we see not the Holy Bible, but the Church, that is, the living community of believers founded upon St.Peter, the Apostles and their successors called "the pillar and ground of truth".
While I'm not trying to diminish the importance of the Bible in any way, this passage is intended to show that Christ established an authoritative teaching Church which was commissioned to "teach all nations, baptizing them..." It's plainly evident from this and other passages (St.Matt. 16:18-19, 28:20 and St.John 16:13 that Our Lord emphasized the authority of His Church and the role it would have in safeguarding and defining the deposit of faith and morals and that He was referring to its infallibility when He called the Chruch the pillar and ground of truth.
As to the first part of your statement, you may rely upon the Bible alone, but I rely upon what the Holy Bible teaches and that is---- the Church is the pillar and ground of truth.
hahaha no you have the right idea Charles. She was just using the analogy of the weatherman and saying, using that example, that we are quick to believe what we hear without going on what we really deep down know inside. She was using a physical example to hit home a spiritual truth. Jesus did this alot. Sometimes it's just easier to accept what we hear then to find out the real truth.
Interesting Daiwa. I'll check into that. Never heard of that book. Either it's the same sort of idea but just a diff approach like you said or it's totally contradicting scripture. If it's hearing....from God thru the scriptures then that would be ok. I'll check it out and let you know.
Scriptures are clear, most of the NT was written by Paul and he said to young Timothy to stick to the scriptures and don't go outside of them for spiritual truth. I taught the book of Colossians a year or so ago and the thought was similar. There were many many gnostic teachings going around at that time and Paul was telling the church of Colosse, not to listen to the false teachers spreading things that contradicted scripture. So sticking to what you "know" and been taught already instead of what you hear (false teachers) would be appropriate here.
while I appreciate your infput Lula, I don't want this to turn into yet another Catholic push. You're turning it right back to man again. The whole point is to get away from what man says and go search out the truth from the word of God. It's not really that hard to do. Man makes it hard.
so what dylan really meant by "don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" was hold the bible up and notice whether it gets wet, icy, hot and in which direction the pages flutter?
fascinating.
Oh how often this happens. I can admit that when i first came here i was one of those who had the tendency to believe what I heard because I did not want to accpet that what i considered a reliable source would lie to me. Man, did I learn that lesson fast.
don't worry Charles, we all do. It's called live and learn. When we stop learning, we're dead.
Then I hope you'll read The Jesus Dynasty.
The ironic thing is that Paul, who was a contemporary but never met Jesus, insisted that 'true Christians' accept his 'vision' of Jesus and his teachings rather than the reality of Jesus and his teachings as related by Jesus' brother (and successor) James and the other 11 Apostles.
First off he did meet Jesus. Read Acts 9.
Second of all he was well accepted and respected by the Apostles calling himself the least of them because he was a persecutor of them before he met Christ himself. And the dramatic change was what helped the others to accept him as their own. His power in healing and the gifts that God gave Paul also gave credence that Paul was a man chosen by God. You really should read the book of Acts as penned by Luke. It won't take long to read this and should be very informative for you. So you can either take Luke's version or you can take modern man's version, one who was trying to discredit Paul by the sounds of it.
What you just said, shows me that I can tell which side this book you reccomend is going to fall on. But that's ok. I still want to check it out.
Peter himself elevated Paul's writings to the OT scriptures. And I'm sure you know all about Peter.
You wrote the article entitled
and in it, made the following statement and asked the question....
I responded directly to the title of your article and to this one specific question saying:
Lula posts:
I don't believe what I'm "hearing" from you in this article, namely "that the Bible is the one absolute Truth."
KFC POSTS:
And that's exactly what I did with you KFC and came up wtih 1Timothy 3:15.
It's not about me pushing Catholicism, it's about truth, even to those resistant to "hear" it. In this case, it's you!
This is the 15th century doctrine of Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone) which alleges that the Bible as interpreted by individual believer is the only source of religious authority and is the Christian's sole rule of faith or criterion regarding what is to be believed. The doctrine of the Bible alone is not taught anywhere in the Bible and for good reason, Christians "heard" Christ's teachings first through His apostles and then through their successors through priestly ordination of "the laying on of hands."
In truth, the direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church which alone has the God-given mission to interpretate and teach both Scripture and Tradition. The Church takes her teaching from Divine Revelation, both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, called Sacred Tradition. 1Cor. 11:2, how did St.Paul deliver the unwritten teachings. The Gospel was spread through "hearing" it. 2Thess. 2:14-15; 2Tim. 2 This, I believe, may be what Daiwa was alluding to.
Becasue of bitter persecutions, the New Testament wasn't placed under one cover until 397 AD by the Catholic Council of Constantinople.
And you should take your own advice...Go and search the truth by reading 1Timothy 3:15 and put that together with the rest of those scriptural passages and see what the HS brings to your mind.
Daiwa posts
Oops...I can see I was wrong about what Daiwa was alluding to!
I don't pretend to be a Biblical scholar (I doubt I qualify as 'religious'), but:
Acts 9 refers to Paul having a vision of Jesus, not meeting him 'in the flesh.' This visionary experience occurred while Paul was still actively cooperating in Roman efforts to suppress Jesus's followers and it was this experience that persuaded him that he had been chosen by Jesus to preach the 'good news' to the Gentiles.
From what I've read, there is no evidence that Paul ever met Jesus during Jesus's lifetime, or that he personally heard him preach, for that matter - if he did, he did not mention it himself. No question he was ultimately accepted into the 'inner circle' by the Apostles and endorsed as a missionary to the Roman Gentiles, but this was only some time after Paul had this conversion experience.
Feel free to correct me with evidence to the contrary. Not that you wouldn't.
hahahha...ok you're right about this one....especially since you asked so nicely...
First off.....was Christ resurrected in the flesh? Where was his body? Why hasn't it been found? He said himself to touch him that he was flesh and bone. Thomas did, remember?
You're right about the experience. That was some meeting he had on the way to Damascus. The light of the glory of Christ even blinded him for a bit.
But and this is a big but.....not only was Paul astonished and convinced he was chosen by God but so too were the other Apostles and those who were once afraid of Paul.
Your second paragraph is true and what I think as well. Also, nothing he said either contradicted the OT, the gospels or the other Apostles.
Are you aware that after Paul's experience he went into Arabia for three years alone to be with God? After that he came and met with the Apostles. It kind of sounds similar to John the Baptist who came out of the wilderness eating only locusts and wild honey.
These questions are addressed specifically in the book The Jesus Dynasty. I bought it on a whim @ Barnes & Noble. Very worthwhile reading, if you're interested in the historical reality underpinning Christianity.
It is about you pushing and you stand convicted by your own words in #12. Even AFTER I asked politely that you not turn this into another RCC push you still do.
I know exactly what Paul was saying to Timothy but the question is do you? I refrained because I didn't want to really get into this Catholicism vs scripture yet again. You really don't understand what Paul was saying although you think you do because you're so blinded by the authority of the RCC. They've told you they are the ultimate authority and you believe them to be true. So because I love you and do want you to come to the understanding of the truth.....let's look a bit closer at the verse you keep bringing up shall we?
Here's your 1 Timothy 3:15:
I am writing these things to you hoping to come to you before long but in case I am delayed I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
What you continually get hung up on is the word "church" and you think it means RCC. It doesn't. You don't really read it carefully. Expositing scripture means to draw out carefully what is written
notice the church belongs to God (household of God). In NO sense is it a human institution. It is God's church, his family. Paul's metaphor here is NOT that of a denomination but of a family. Believers (all walks of life) are members of God's household and we are to conduct ourselves accordingly.
Paul further is defining this group of believers as "the church of the living God." I don't think we disagree that God purchased the church with his own blood. Our disagreement has to do with the definition of church. "The living God" has a rich OT heritage which I won't get into here.
Now when he talks about "pillar and support" he was taking from the imagery of these terms from their surroundings. This church where Timothy was Pastor was located in Ephesus. They understood what he was saying. The temple of the goddess Diana was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world and was located in this city. One of its features was its pillars. This temple had 127 pillars, every one of them the gift of a king. Each pillar was a tribute to the king who donated it.
The "support" refers to the foundation on which a structure rests. So in Paul's metaphor the church is the foundation and pillar that holds up the truth. As the foundation and pillars of the Temple of Diana were a testimony to the error of pagan false relgion so the church is to be a testimony to God's truth. That's our mission and its reason for existing.
Now let's look at another passage that I'm hoping (not holding my breath) will make you see what I'm saying a bit clearer. Paul wrote another letter to these Ephesians explaining the definition of the church......so let's take a peek. 2:19-22
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners but fellow citizens with the saints, and the household of God. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. In whom all the building fitly framed together grows to a holy temple in the Lord. In whome you also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.
See, it has nothing to do with building or denomination. Remember when Jesus said "destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up?" The Pharisees thought (as does the RCC) that he was talking about the literal physical Temple and so they made a big deal about this statement when Christ was actually talking about his body. They used that statement against him for treason. In the same way we, who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit are the Temple of God.
It has nothing to do with a building or a denomination. Can't you see this Lula?
I am very interested and have read tons about historical Christianity over the years. But remember you have detractors as well as supporters as in anything. It's good to read both sides but there comes a time when you have to weigh the evidence and for me the evidence is staggering on the side of biblical accuracy exactly as written.
I live within two miles of a Barnes and Noble and while I probably wouldn't purchase the book due to my suspicion of it undermining scripture, and I don't want to monatarily support that, but I will read it there. Maybe I'll take a notebook for notes
Have you ever heard of a very famous distinguished Professor and archeologist named William Albright? He was considered by many to be the foremost biblical archeologist in the word. I think he died in the 1970's. His work has forced many critics to completely reassess their conclusions regarding the history of Israel. He said:
"All radical schools in New Testament criticism which have existed in the past or which exist today are prearchaeological and are, therefore, since they were build "in der Luft" (in the air), quite antiquated today."
Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White said:
"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming.....any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."
There was another archeologist who set about to trace Paul's steps in the book of Acts purely from a historical POV. He was not a believer and saw that Luke was pretty detailed about places and points of interest so he set about to do some research. After spending many many years in this endeavor only studying this book of Acts he was absolutely blown away. He became a believer as a result. I'm thinking his name was Ramsey.
I think you'll be surprised. Far from 'undermining' them, the scriptures are the primary sources for the historical evidence developed in the book - while there is a lot of theological cloaking and embellishment by the authors of the Gospels, much factual history is there to be teased out. The book could not possibly be considered 'anti-Christian' if you ask me.
ok.
What do you mean by this? Theological cloaking? I've never heard of that term before. Of course you must realize the scriptures written by these authors claim that the words they penned are inspired by the Holy Spirit (God).
The book does a good job of explaining this, but it's nothing sinister - simply a matter of sorting historical fact from theological interpretation.
Quite so.
Yes, I agree 100%...whenever I refer to "the Church", I never mean that it's a a building or a denomination.
The Catholic Chruch is not a building or a denomonation...it is the Mystical Body of Christ.
The Church is the mystical Body of Christ and St.Paul is the one who taught that...interesting that you are discussing St. Paul with Daiwa....when St.Paul on the road to Damascus was knocked off his horse and he heard Christ ask, "why do you persecute Me?" St.Paul wasn't physically persecuting Christ, but was persecuting Christ's Church, the very same Church built upon St.Peter St. Matt. 16: 13-20.
I love you too....and will be away for the long weekend but will carefully read your comments about 1Timothy and get back to you with my thoughts.
but you do Lula. You just don't realize it. In the same breath you said this:
translated: Paul was talking about the RCC in your eyes. Because for it to be the mystical body of Christ it would include Christians OUTSIDE the realm of the RCC. The RCC is a denomination. It is. It's an exlusive club you have to join to be accepted as a true believer since only the RCC has the truth.
ok, have a good trip.
christians get 2 long weekends in a row? now that's somethin i can believe in.
Daiwa,
I did look into the book you recommended and I disagree with you on the sinister part. I do think it's just another book in a long line over the centuries to try and discredit the scriptures as written.
I looked directly at one of his links here:
http://jesusdynasty.com/
and I was greatly disturbed at what I read. Two Messiahs? Even John denied that he was a Messiah. Christ said of John even tho he was the greatest born among women even those of us who come into the kingdom will be greater than he. Does that sound like John was a Messiah?
There is so many differences in role between John and Jesus I don't know where to begin. John was a witness not a Messiah. John put himself in a subordinate role and lifted high Jesus. Jesus was "full of grace and truth." John was not given this description. John was not God in the Flesh. Jesus was and claimed to be. John did not. John wasn't the one for whom the scriptures spoke of. He wasn't resurrected. John baptized and made ready for the Messiah. He was greatly used of God (similar to Moses) but not God nor any Messiah. Jesus did not baptize but was baptized of John. The title Christ is another word for Messiah. John's name bears no such meaning.
The two did not know each other ahead of time either which Tabor seems to indicate.
The Jews were NOT expecting two Messiahs. Going all the way back to the writing of Moses they expected one Messiah who would save and free them from oppression. The whole OT spoke of the one who was coming. Not the two who were coming.
Jesus NEVER preached aderence to the Jewish law. He was all about Grace, not the law. He was accused of breaking the Sabbath more than once. He healed on the Sabbath and was almost taken just for that. John wrote that Moses brought the law but Jesus brought grace and truth.
There is so much I could say about how this book is very anti-biblical but it would take pages. So I'll leave you with a link I found that did the job nicely. It comes from Christianity Today and they did a nice review of this book and brought up an interesting comparison to Marcion of years ago.
There's really nothing new under ths sun (son).
Here's the link. It's only 4 pages. It would be worth your reading especially since you read the book in full. They call it "How to Explain Away the New Testament." I concur.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/mayweb-only/120-32.0.html
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
